


th Congress "1 g-g-« ^ j-g J Report No. 

1st Session / - I 382 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN 
CLAIMS 



REPORTED BY COURT OF CLAIMS 
UNDER BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS 



TO ACCOMPANY H. R. 15372 



March 16, 1908. — Ordered to be printed 



WASHINGTON 

GOA T ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1908 



0£G 1 7 1908 



<■ 



A 






Calendar No. 421. 

60th Congress, ) . SENATE. j Report 

1st Session. J j No. 382. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS REPORTED BY COURT 
OF CLAIMS UNDER BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS. 



Makch 16, 1908. — Ordered to be printed. 



77^ 



Mr. Fulton, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. R. 15372.] 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred iae bill (H. R. 
15372) "for the allowance of certain claims reported by the Court of 
Claims under the provisions of the acts approved March third, eight- 
een hundred and eighty-three, and March tl d, eighteen I undred and 
eighty-seven, and commonly known as the Lawman anw the Tucker 
acts," having had the same under consideration, respectfully report 
the same back and recommend that it be amended as follows, and 
being so amended, that it do pass, namely: 

1. Amend the title by adding thereto the words "and for other 
purposes." 

2. Strike out all after line 9, on page 1, of the bill, and insert the 
items herewith submitted in amended bill: 

ITEMS OMITTED. 

The following items which appear on the original bill are omitted 
by the amendment as not being within the rules observed by the com- 
mittee, as hereinafter explained, namely: 

GEOKGIA. 

To Sabibi Jones, of Pike County, two hundred and fifteen dollars. 

ILLINOIS. 

To Fannie Pemberton, of Golconda, four thousand dollars. 

KENTUCKY. 

To Thomas R. Hill, of Bath County, four hundred and ninety-five 
dollars. 

To Saint Andrews Lodge, Numbered Eighteen, Free and Accepted 
Masons, of Cynthiana, Kentucky, six hundred dollars. 

To A. W. Richards, administrator of the estate of Kinchen Bell, 
deceased, late of Union County, one thousand four hundred and 
twenty dollars. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



To James N. Hall, of Montgomery County, seven hundred and 
fifty dollars . 

To Daniel Mans, of Maysville, Kentucky, late of Goochland County, 
Virginia, two hundred and fifty dollars. 

T. B. Salyer, of Lawrence County, three hundred and fifty dollars. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

To John M. Bass, administrator of the estate of William O. Moseley, 
deceased, late of Hinds County, four thousand two hundred and eighty- 
five dollars. 

MISSOURI. 

To Nannie, Oscar W., John R., and Emma Cogswell, heirs of O. H. 
Cogswell, deceased, of Jackson County, one thousand six hundred 
dollars. 

TENNESSEE. 

To W. F. Forbes, administrator of Archie B. Forbes, deceased, late 
of Memphis, Tennessee, two thousand six hundred dollars. 

To William H. Landrum, of Gibson County, two hundred and fifty- 
seven dollars. 

To the trustees of the First Baptist Church, at Jefferson City, nine 
hundred and fifteen dollars. 

To the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Truine, 
Williamson County, three thousand eight hundred dollars. 

William M. Moss, administrator of the estate of John Smith, 
deceased, of Madison County, one thousand six hundred dollars. 

TEXAS. 

To Robert E. Williams, John T. Williams, Mary E. Williams, George 
M. Williams, and Ida Williams-Eddy, heirs of the estate of Robert M. 
Williams, deceased, of the city of Dallas, one thousand one hundred 
and forty dollars. 

VIRGINIA. 

To John B. Myers, administrator of the estate of Alexander Myers, 
deceased, late of Charles City County, two thousand six hundred and 
eighty-two dollars. 

To Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland, legal heirs of 
Theodoric Bland, deceased, late of Prince George County, three thou- 
sand six hundred dollars. 

To the trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, of Henrico 
County, eight hundred dollars. 

AMOUNT PROPOSED TO BE APPROPRIATED. 

The bill as it came from the House provided for appropriations 
aggregating $315,345.28. 

The amended bill proposed appropriations aggregating $2,299,601 .82, 
distributed or classified as follows: 

Miscellaneous Court of Claims findings, under the Bowman and the 

Tucker Acts ' $985, 747. 12 

Difference between shore and sea pay, as per Court of Claims findings 65, 768. 96 

French spoliation claims, as per Court of Claims findings 714, 631. 92 

Miscellaneous claims that have heretofore been approved by committee 
or committees and passed one or both Houses 533, 453. 82 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



State. 


Number of 
claimants. 


Amounts. 


State. 


Number of 
claimants. 


Amounts. 




24 

19 

9 

3 

3 

36 

3 

16 

15 

15 

9 

8 

49 

36 

4 

20 


$38,263.00 

28,852.67 

9,190.69 

552. 79 

412. 19 

12,394.65 

16,406.21 

34,779.00 

4,813.97 

4,023.97 

2,456.08 

21,362.91 

28,635.95 

155,664.49 

12,783.23 

26.299.00 


Nebraska 


2 

27 

1 

3 

13 

12 

1 

6 

2 

1 

43 

4 

1 

89 

1 

1 

100 

36 

1 

2 


$554.07 




New Jersey 


8,479.67 




20.39 






3,157.18 






96,676.29 


District of Columbia. . 


North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 


12,639.00 
260.35 




2,163.10 




Oklahoma 


626.48 




Oregon 


417.31 




Pennsylvania 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee _ 


46,899.33 




10,383.33 




391. 31 




134,275.33 




700.00 




Vermont 


124.06 




31 18.124.20 




128,558.39 




6 

3 

25 

25 

1 


1,055.57 

826. 10 

47,728.00 

31,219.46 

53.23 




42,886.00 




115.41 






^ £j 522.76 




Total 






985,747.12 











Difference between shore and sea pay, as per Court of Claims findings, by States. 



State. 


Number of 
claimants. 


Amounts. 


1 

State. 


Number of 
claimants. 


Amounts. 




6 
2 
4 
1 
26 
1 
1 
6 
1 
2 
4 
19 
33 
2 
3 
1 


$1,325.16 

282.56 

1,116.15 

490.74 

4,612.25 

168.64 

97.81 

3,758.47. 

39.86 

91.60 

1,866.32 

8,703.56 

12,491.78 

506.31 

396.55 

259.66 


New Hampshire 


4 

12 

1 

33 

2 

9 

1 

25 

1 

1 

9 

3 

1 


$1,039.95 




3,033.83 
766.35 










7,910.32 
705.07 








Ohio 


4,077.62 
936.68 










7,397.65 
41.20 










720.39 






2,332.86 






457.15 






142.47 




Total 






65,768.96 













WAR CLAIMS. 

The claims grouped above as ' 'Miscellaneous Court of Claims 
findings " are principally for stores and supplies taken by proper 
authority for the use of the Army of the Umted States, from loyal 
citizens residing in States declared in rebellion, and claims for the use 
and occupation by the Army of buildings within such States owned 
by loyal citizens residing therein. 

Stores and supplies. — -In the preparation of this bill in passing on 
claims for stores and supplies the committee rejected every claim in 
which it did not affirmatively appear that the original claimant or 
party from whom the property was taken was throughout the war of 
the rebellion loyal to the Government of the United States, or where it 
affirmatively appeared that the claim had not been presented to the 
Commissioner of Claims or to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress, and that no evidence had been 
offered in excuse of the delay or laches in presenting the claim. The 
committee has been liberal rather than severe in applying the doctrine 
of laches, but where the court has directly f ouncL laches and that no 
evidence in excuse thereof was offered and that no facts appeared to 
combat it, the committee has rejected the claim. 



4 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Claims for use, occupation, and destruction of ouildings. — Many 
claims have been presented for use and occupation by the Army of the 
United States of buildings, principally church and college buildings. 
The doctrine of laches has not been applied to such claims for the 
reason that there has never been any tribunal other than Congress to 
which such claims could be presented. The Southern Claims Com- 
mission refused to entertain claims of corporations or quasi corpora- 
tions, such as church organizations, lodges, etc. Hence in considering 
such claims the doctrine of laches has not been invoked. The commit- 
tee has declined, however, to allow claims for destruction of buildings, 
either by the Army or by individual soldiers, holding that only that 
which was actually used by the Army is to be paid for. Hence where, 
as in many cases, the findings show that the Army for a time used and 
occupied a building and then destroyed it, either intentionally or 
accidentally, and the finding is for the use, occupation, and value of 
the building, the claim has been disallowed. Where the court has 
found the value of the use and occupation separately from the finding 
as to the value of the building, the former has been allowed and the 
latter rejected. The same rule has been followed in cases where 
buildings were torn down and the material devoted to the use of the 
Army. If the value of the material, simply as material, such as 
boards, bricks, etc., was found by the court, the claim has been included 
in the bill, but if the finding was for the value of the building only or 
for the combined values of the building and the material, the claim 
was rejected. 

FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS. 

All claims of this character which appear to be just have been 
included in the amendment proposed by the committee. The claims 
of insurance corporations for losses paid on policies of insurance have 
not been included, as it has not heretofore been the policy of Congress 
to recognize that class of claims. 

BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

Up to the present time there have been referred to the Court of 
Claims by Congress for finding of facts 13,171 claims, of which there 
are now pending 2,017. A large proportion of these will probably 
never be brought to trial because of the inability of the claimants to 
prove loyalty tkroughout the civil war. 

Prior to the Fifty-first Congress, claims arising under the Bowman 
Act aggregating $128,138.73 were appropriated for. The first gen- 
eral act for the payment of this class of cases was passed in the Fifty- 
first Congress; other similar acts were passed in the Fifty-fifth, 
Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The amounts appro- 
priated were as follows : 

Fifty-first Congress $573, 763. 30 

Fifty-fifth Congress 1, 722, 655. 79 

Fifty-seventh Congress : 444, 503. 10 

Fifty-eighth Congress 1, 197, 272. 60 

During the Fifty-second, Fifty-third, and Fifty-fourth Con- 

fresses various private acts were passed upon findings of fact made 
V the Court of Claims in this class of cases, aggregating $75,003.96. 
Total of $4,216,331.44. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 5 

COURT FINDINGS AND PvEPORTS. 

In the appendix will be found copies of all findings and committee 
reports relating to items proposed to be inserted by the amendment 
reported by the committee, excepting findings provided for in the 
items which appear in the original bill. Such findings will be found 
in the report of the House Committee on War Claims on this bill, 
being report No. 543. 

For the convenient use of the Senate, the committee has embodied 
in this report copies of the Bowman and Tucker acts: 

THE BOWMAN ACT. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assemble]. That whenever a claim or matter is pending before any com- 
mittee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or before either House of Congress, 
which involves the investigation and determination of facts, the committee or House- 
may cause the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining 
thereto, to be transmitted to the ( ourt of Claims of the United States, and the same 
shall there be proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. When the 
facts shall have been found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall 
report the same to the committee, or to the House by which the case was transmitted 
for its consideration. 

Sec 2. That when a claim or matter is pending in any of the Executive Depart- 
ments which may involve controverted questions of fact or law, the head of such 
Department may transmit the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents 
pertaining thereto, to said court, and the same shall be there proceeded in under such 
rules as the court may adopt. When the facts and conclusions of law shall have been 
found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report its findings and 
opinions to the Department by which it was transmitted for its guidance and action. 

Sec. 3. The jurisdiction of said court shall not extend to or include any claim against 
the United States growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army 
or Navy during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, or for the use and occupa- 
tion of real estate by any part of the military or naval forces of the United States in the 
operations of said forces during the said war at the seat of war; nor shall the said court 
have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States which is now barred by virtue 
of the provisions of any law of the United States. 

Sec. 4. In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to any part 
of military or naval forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the petition shall aver that the person who furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies or stores were taken, did not give any 
aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government 
of the United States, and the fact of such loyalty shall be a jurisdictional fact; and 
unless the said court shall, on a preliminary inquiry, find that the person who furnished 
such supplies or stores, or from whom the same were taken as aforesaid, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war, the court shall not have 
jurisdiction of such cause, and the same shall, without further proceedings, be dis- 
missed. 

Sec. 5. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants, under his direction, shall appear 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States in all cases which 
may be transmitted to the Court of Claims under this act, with the same power to inter- 
pose counter claims, offsets, defenses for fraud practiced or attempted to be practiced 
by claimants, and other defenses, in like manner as he is now required to defend the 
United States in said court. 

Sec. 6. That in the trial of such cases no person shall be excluded as a witness 
because he or she is a party to or interested in the same. 

Sec. 7. That reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act, if not finally 
acted upon duiing the session at which they are reported, shall be continued from 
session to session and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be finally acted 
upon. 

Approved March 3, 1883. 



6 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

THE TUCKER ACT. 

[24 Stat. L., p. 505.] 

AN ACT To provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and 
determine the following matters: 

First. All claims founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of 
Congress, except for pensions, or upon any regulation of an Executive Department, 
or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the Government of the United 
States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in 
respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United 
States either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty if the United States were suable: 
Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to either 
of the courts herein mentioned jurisdiction to hear and determine claims growing 
out of the late civil war, and commonly known as "war claims," or to hear and deter- 
mine other claims which have heretofore been rejected or reported on adversely by 
any court, Department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same. 

Second. All set-offs, counterclaims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or 
unliquidated, or other demands whatsoever on the part of the Government of the 
United States against any claimant against the Government in said court: Provided, 
That no suit against the Government of the United States shall be allowed under 
this act unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued 
for which the claim is made. 

Sec 2. That the district courts of the United States shall have concurrent juris- 
diction with the Court of Claims as to all matters named in the preceding section 
where the amount of the claim does not exceed one thousand dollars, and the circuit 
courts of the United States shall have such concurrent jurisdiction in all cases where 
the amount of such claim exceeds one thousand dollars and does not exceed ten thou- 
sand dollars. All causes brought and tried under the provisions of this act shall be 
tried by the court without a jury. 

Sec 3. That whenever any person shall present his petition to the Court of Claims 
alleging that he is or has been indebted to the United States as an officer or agent 
thereof, or by virtue of any contract therewith, or that he is the guarantor or surety 
or personal representative of any officer or agent or contractor so indebted, or that 
he or the person for whom he is such surety, guarantor, or personal representative 
has held any office or agency under the United States or* entered into any contract 
therewith under which it may be or has been claimed that an indebtedness to the 
United States has arisen and exists, and that he or the person he represents has applied 
to the proper department of the Government requesting that the account of such 
office, agency, or indebtedness may be adjusted and settled, and that three years 
have elapsed from the date of such application and said account still remains unset- 
tled and unadjusted, and that no suit upon the same has been brought by the United 
States, said court shall, due notice first being given to the head of said Department 
and to the Attorney-General of the United States, proceed to hear the parties and to 
ascertain the amount, if any, due the United States on said account. The Attorney- 
General shall represent the United States at the hearing of said cause. The court 
may postpone the same from time to time whenever justice shall require. The judg- 
ment of said court, or of the Supreme Court of the United States, to which an appeal 
shall lie, as in other cases, as to the amount due, shall be binding and conclusive upon 
the parties. The payment of such amount so found due by the court shall discharge 
such obligation. An action shall accrue to the United States against such principal 
or surety or representative to recover the amount so found due, which may be brought 
at any time within three years after the final judgment of said court. . Unless suit 
shall be brought within said time, such claim and the claim on the original indebted- 
ness shall be forever barred. 

Sec 4. That the jurisdiction of the respective courts of the United States proceed- 
ing under this act, including the right of exception and appeal, shall be governed by 
the law now in force, in so far as the same is applicable and not inconsistent with the 
provisions of this act; and the course of procedure shall be in accordance with the 
established rules of said respective courts, and of such additions and modifications 
thereof as said courts may adopt. 

Sec 5. That the plaintiff in any suit brought under the provisions of the second 
section of this act shall file a petition, duly verified, with the clerk of the respective 
court having jurisdiction of the case, and in the district where the plaintiff resides. 
Such petition shall set forth the full name and residence of the plaintiff, the nature 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 7 

of his claim, and a succinct statement of the facts upon which the claim is based, the 
money or any other thing claimed, or the damages sought to be recovered, and praying 
the court for a judgment or decree upon the facts and law. 

Sec. 6. That the plaintiff shall cause a copy of his petition, filed under the pre- 
ceding section, to be served upon the district attorney of the United States in the 
district wherein suit is brought, and shall mail a copy of the same, by registered letter, 
to the Attorney-General of the United States, and shall thereupon cause to be filed 
with the clerk of the court wherein suit is instituted an affidavit of such service and 
the mailing of such letter. It shall be the duty of the district attorney upon whom 
service of petition is made as aforesaid to appear and defend the interests of the Gov- 
ernment in the suit, and within sixty days after the service of petition upon him, 
unless the time should be extended by order of the court made in the case, to file a 
plea, answer, or demurrer on the part of the Government, and to file a notice of any 
counterclaim, set-off, claim for damages, or other demand or defense whatsoever of 
the Government in the premises: Provided, That should the district attorney neglect 
or refuse to file the plea, answer, demurrer, or defense, as required, the plaintiff 
may proceed with the case under such rules as the court may adopt in the premises; 
but the plaintiff shall not have judgment or decree for his claim, or any part thereof, 
unless he shall establish the same by proof satisfactory to the court. 

Sec. 7. That it shall be the duty of the court to cause a written opinion to be filed 
in the cause, setting forth the specific findings by the court of the facts therein and 
the conclusions of the court upon all questions of law involved in the case, and to 
render judgment thereon. If the suit be in equity or admiralty, the court shall pro- 
ceed with the same according to the rules of such courts. 

Sec. 8. That in the trial of any suit brought under any of the provisions of this act 
no person shall be excluded as a witness because he is a party to or interested in said 
suit; and any plaintiff or party in interest may be examined as a witness on the part of 
the Government. 

Section ten hundred and seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed. 
The provisions of section ten hundred and eighty of the Revised Statutes shall apply 
to cases under this act. 

Sec 9. That the plaintiff or the United States, in any suit brought under the pro- 
visions of this act, shall have the same rights of appeal or writ of error as are now reserved 
in the statutes of the United States in that behalf made, and upon the conditions and 
limitations therein contained. The modes of procedure in claiming and perfecting 
an appeal or writ of error shall conform in all respects, and as near as may be, to the 
statutes and rules of court governing appeals and writs of error in like causes. 

Sec. 10. That when the findings of fact and the law applicable thereto have been 
filed in any case as provided in section six of this act, and the judgment or decree is 
adverse to the Government, it shall be the duty of the district attorney to transmit 
to the Attorney-General of- the United States certified copies of all the papers filed in 
the cause, with a transcript of the testimony taken, the written findings of the court, 
and his written opinion as to the same; whereupon the Attorney-General shall deter- 
mine and direct whether an appeal or writ of error shall be taken or not; and when so 
directed the district attorney shall cause an appeal or writ of error to be perfected in 
accordance with the terms of the statutes and rules of practice governing the same: 
Provided, That no appeal or writ of error shall be allowed after six months from the 
judgment or decree in such suit. From the date of such final judgment or decree 
interest shall be computed thereon, at the rate of four per centum per annum, until 
the time when an appropriation is made for the payment of the judgment or decree. 

Sec 11. Tha't the Attorney-General shall report to Congress, and at the beginning 
of each session of Congress, the suits under this act in which a final judgment or decree 
has been rendered, giving the date of each, and a statement of the costs taxed in each 
case. 

Sec 12. That when any claim or matter may be pending in any of the Executive 
Departments which involves controverted questions of fact or law, the head of such 
department, with the consent of the claimant, may transmit the same, with the 
vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to said Court of Claims, 
and the same 6hall be there proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. 
"When the facts and conclusions of law shall have been found, the court shall report 
its findings to the department by which it was transmitted. 

Sec 13. That in every case which shall come before the Court of Claims, or is now 
pending therein, under the provisions of an act entitled "An act to afford assistance 
and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims 
and demands against the Government," approved March third, eighteen hundred 
and eighty-three, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court, upon the facts 
established, that it has jurisdiction to render judgment or^decree thereon under 



8 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

existing laws or under the provisions of this act, it shall proceed to do so, giving to 
either party such further opportunity for hearing as in its judgment justice shall 
require, and report its proceedings therein to either House of Congress or to the de- 
partment by which the same was referred to said court. 

Sec. 14. That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in either 
House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the United States, 
legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person, the House in which 
such bill is pending may refer the same to the Court of Claims, who shall proceed with 
the same in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March third, eighteen 
hundred and eighty-three, entitled an '"Act to afford assistance and relief to Congress 
and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against 
the Government," and report to such House the facts in the case and the amount, 
where the same can be liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question 
whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such 
grant, gift, or'bounty. and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim- 
ant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

Sec. 15. If the Government of the United States shall put in issue the right of the 
plaintiff to recover, the court may. in its discretion, allow costs to the prevailing 
party from the time of joining such issue. Such costs, however, shall include only 
what is actually incurred for witnesses and for summoning the same, and fees paid to 
the clerk of the court. 

Sec. 16. That all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act are herel re- 
pealed. 

Approved, March 3, 1887. (Vol. 30. Stat. L.. pp. 494, 495.) 



APPENDIX. 



Wak Claims. 



ALABAMA. 



HENRY DAVIS. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9299. Henry Davis 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States foi their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Henry 
Davis, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the 
same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9299. Henry Davis v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1895. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of January, 1908, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of February, 190S. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Clark 
McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Madison, State of 
Alabama; that he resided in said county and State during the late civil war; that dur- 
ing said war, to wit, in 1863 and 1864, the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took from petitioner quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

1 horse and 2 mules $325 

1 cow 25 

2 sows 30 

Total 380 

The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in Madison County, State of Ala- 
bama, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time 
and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and thirty-five 
dollars ($135). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clepk Court of Claims. 
9 



10 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

BELLE F. NEIL, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10609. Belle F. Neil, administratrix of the estate of James 
Watkins Fennell v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim, in the above-entitled case, for stores and supplies alleged to have been 
taken from the heirs of James Watkins Fennell, late of Marshall County, Ala., for the 
use of the United States Army, as embodied in the Senate bill No. 104, was referred 
to this court by resolution of the United States Senate of May 21, 1902, under the pro- 
visions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

Belle F. Neil, administratrix of the estate of said James Watkins Fennell, appeared 
by her attorneys, Dudley & Michener, and filed her petition herein February 14, 1905, 
averring, among other things: 

That said decedent and such of his heirs as seek to be beneficiaries of this claim 
were loyal to the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

That said decedent died January 19, 1864, in said county and State, the owner and 
in possession of a large plantation in said county and State, which was well stocked 
with farm supplies, consisting of grain, cotton, and live stock. 

That in November, 1864, subsequent to the death of said decedent, but while his 
said estate was still unsettled, the U.S. gunboat General Grant, commanded by Captain 
Watson, carried away from said plantation 31 bales of cotton, weighing 15,500 pounds, 
belonging to said estate, which cotton was subsequently delivered to Special Agent 
Eaton of the Treasury Department, and subsequently sold and the proceeds of the 
sale, amounting to $4,960.59, were turned in to the United States Treasury. 

That said sum, however, it is averred, does not represent the fair market value of 
the cotton, the same being worth $12,400, for which cotton no payment has ever been 
made. 

That thereafter, during the years 1864 and 1865, there were taken by the military 
and naval forces of the United States from decedent's estate, which was still unsettled, 
stores and supplies of the kind and character following, that is to say: 

3,450 pounds meat, at 25 cents per pound $862. 50 

1,700 pounds bacon, at 50 cents per pound 850. 00 

43 hogs, at $20 860. 00 

150 bushels corn, at $1 150. 00 

2 mules, at $200 400. 00 

1 horse, at 150. 00 

3 oxen, at $50 150. 00 

1 -milch cow, at 30. 00 

1 two-year-old steer, at 25. 00 

1 two-year-old heifer, at 25. 00 

Winter's supply of groceries and provisions, including several barrels of mo- 
lasses, poultry, lard, preserves, honey, etc 500. 00 

Total 4, 002. 50 

On behalf of and in defense of the United States the Attorney-General appeared, 
through Louis A. Pradt, Assistant Attorney-General, with whom was associated F. 
De C. Faust, special attorney. 

The foregoing case coming on for trial and the argument of counsel being heard, and 
the court having examined and considered the evidence and briefs on both sides, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion James Watkins Fennell 
resided in Marshall County, Ala., and was the owner of a large plantation, well stocked 
with farm products, such as grain, cotton, and live stock. 

- In January, 1864, said Fennell died the owner and possessor of said property, leav- 
ing surviving him his widow, Matilda M. Fennell, and ten children, to wit: Charity 
E. Henry, James William Fennell, Isham Watkins Fennell, Catherine M. Esslinger, 
Mary Jane Graham, John H. Fennell, ranging from 17 to 30 years of age, and Frank D. 
Fennell, Belle F. Neil, Caius G. Fennell, and Mattie M. Fennell, ranging from 6 to 15 
years of age. 

II. The decedent, James Watkins Fennell, and his widow, Matilda M. Fennell, as 
well as Catherine M. Esslinger, Mary Jane Graham, Frank D. Fennell, Belle F. Neil, 
Caius G. Fennell, and Mattie M. Fennell were loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for th e suppression of the rebellion. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 11 

The three sons of decedent, to wit: James William Fennell, Isham Watkins Fennell, 
and John H. Fennell, and his daughter, Charity E. Henry are not proven to have been 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

III. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there were taken by the 
military and naval forces of the United States from the unsettled estate of said decedent 
from his said plantation 31 bales of cotton, without marks, which, as reported by the 
Treasury Department, was captured November 23, 1864, by the U. S. S. General Grant, 
in Marshall County, Ala., as the property of Capt. J. W. Fennell, a Confederate officer, 
who was captured at the same tune, which cotton was afterwards transported to Cin- 
cinnati, Ohio, where 30£ bales were sold by W. P. Mellen, a Treasury agent, and the 
net proceeds, $4,960.59, arising therefrom were accounted for to the Treasury. 

The cotton so captured was raised on the plantation of the claimant's decedent in 
the year 1860 and at the time of seizure was on the plantation of the late James W. 
Fennell. 

IV. Also during said war, and after the death of the claimant's decedent, but before 
his said estate had been settled, there were taken by the military and naval forces of 
the United States, for their use, from the plantation of said decedent, stores and sup- 
plies of the character and kind described m the petition, of which one-third belonged 
to the widow and the remaining two-thirds, share and share alike, to the ten children 
of said decedent heretofore named. Thereafter the widow died and her children be- 
came the owners of her one-third interest, 6hare and share alike. 

The interest of the six loyal children heretofore named, in their own right and in the 
right of their deceased mother's one-third, in and to the stores and supplies so taken, 
including the interest of decedent 's three sons and daughter who are not found to have 
been loyal, in right of their loyal mother's one-third, was reasonably worth the sum of 
one thousand three hundred and thirty dollars ($1,330), for which no payment appears 
to have beenmade. 

V. The evidence shows that the claimants had at different times after the year 1870 
placed their claim in the hands of different lawyers for collection, but nothing appears to 
have been done by them until the presentation of the claim to the Congress at different 
sessions, and the final reference of the claim by resolution of the United States Senate to 
the court, as hereinbefore set forth. And further, in respect to the claim to the proceeds 
of the cotton accounted for to the Treasury, the same is barred under the provisions of 
the abandoned or captured property act of March 12, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 820.) 

By the Court. 
■t Filed February 19, 1907. 

A true copy. 

lest this 25th^day of|February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

AssistantlClerk Court of Claims. 

MARGARET J. PARKS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No.£10164.;5t Margaret J. Parks^. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Mar- 
garet J. Parks, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 11, 1904. 

[Court of Claims.^ Congressional case No. 10164.^ Margaret J. Parks v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by 
resolution of the United States Senate on the 13th day of April, 1900, under the Tucker 
Act. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. — --' 



12 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of May. 1904. 

Movers and Consaul. esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Geo. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County. State of 
Alabama, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different 
times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from 
her quartermaster' stores and commissary supplies of the value of S3. 600 and appro- 
priated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

1 house and barn SI, 000 

400 pound vmts per pound 200 

Growing crop 1 Is. at 40 cents 400 

50 head pork h per head 250 

30 head of stock hoes 100 

15 head of stock cattle 150 

100 

4 mul 25 per head 500 

2 two-year old mul': - a ch 100 

2 horses 150 

1 wagon and harness 100 

200 pounds of bacon, at 10 cents per pound 20 

300 pounds of lard, at 10 cents per pound 30 

Farming implements 50 

Fodder and oats 50 

3 miles of rail fencing 300 

Household and kitchen furniture 100 

Total 3, 600 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
1 on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Jackson, State of Alabama, 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of ten "hundred 'and sixty-eight 
dollars ($1,068), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

II. A claim for said property was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By tee Court. 
Filed May 31, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29ih day of November, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH OF HUNTSVILLE, ALA. 

fCourt of Claims. Congressional case No. 11690. Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of Huntsville, 

Alabama, v. the United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case is for the destruction of a building used by 
claimant organization as a house of worship during the late war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. It was transmitted to this court by resolution of the United States 
Senate on April 27, 1904, under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 5th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 13 

The petitioners in their petition make the following allegations, to wit: 
That dining the late war of the rebellion, the Primitive Baptist Church (colored) 
of Huntsville, Ala., was the owner of a certain church building; that during said war 
the United States military forces took possession of and tore down the church building 
belonging to said Primitive Baptist Church (colored) and earned off and converted to 
the use of the United States Army the materials taken from said building; that the 
reasonable rental value of said building at the time of taking was $1,987.99. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of 
Huntsville, Ala., was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late 
war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, and for the use of the army, took possession of and tore down the 
church building of the Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of Huntsville, Ala., and 
used the material thereof, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
the sum of $909. 

It does not appear that payment has ever been made for any part thereof. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 12, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SAMUEL F. RYAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11118. Samuel F. Ryan v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate on the 3d day of March, 1903, for a finding of facts, in 
accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly 
known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 12th day of Janu- 
ary, A. D. 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Col- 
lins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That he is now and at all times mentioned in his petition has been a citizen of the 
United States; that he is now a resident of the county of McLennan, State of Texas; 
that during the late civil war he was a resident of the county of Marshall, State of 
Alabama; that during said war he was the owner in his own right of an undivided 
five-sixths interest in and to a certain farm situate in said county and State, and 
was also the owner of an undivided five-sixths interest in and to the stock and per- 
sonal p'roperty upon said farm; that his father, John Ryan, was the owner of the othei 
undivided one-sixth interest in and to said property. 

That during said war there were taken from petitioner and his coowner, John Ryan, 
by the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, and converted to 
the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of 
the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

8 mules, at $130 each ' $1, 040. 00 

2 horses, at $130 each 260. 00 

4,015 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 3, 011. 25 

2 yoke of oxen, 2,000 pounds, at 8 cents per pound 160. 00 

25 head of cattle, 5,000 pounds, at 8 cents per pound 400. 00 

40 pork hogs, 180 pounds each, 7,200 pounds, at 8 cents per pound 576. 00 

13,800 rails, 138 cords, at $3 per cord 414. 00 

1 good farm wagon 60. 00 

1 set of blacksmith tools 40. 00 

Total • 5, 961. 25 



14 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That the undivided five-sixths interest of petitioner in and to the property so taken 
amounts to $4,967.70. 

That this claim was originally presented by petitioner's father, said John Ryan, in 
his own name, to the Southern Claims Commission while petitioner was a minor; that 
said claim was rejected by said Commission, as the commissioners were not satisfied 
with the proof of loyalty of said John Ryan; that upon becoming advised of his legal 
rights petitioner presented this claim to the Congress of the United States, and it was 
referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, under the provisions 
of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

findings»of'fact. 

I. The plantation in Marshall County, State of Alabama, from which the personal 
property alleged to be in part owned by the claimant was taken by the military 
authorities of the United States for the use of the Army originally belonged to Gabriel 
M. Moore. On the 9th of March, 1850, he conveyed all his property, real, personal, 
and mixed, including specifically the above-named plantation, to two trustees, such 
conveyance being made ' ' in view of the uncertainty of all human affairs " and because 
he was "desirous of securing as far as he could a certain support and maintenance" 
for his wife and daughter Mary and such other children as might be born. Subse- 
quently another child was born, named William. 

In December, 1851, Gabriel M. Moore died, and thereupon, under the laws of Ala- 
bama, one-third of the property, real and personal, vested in his widow; and she sub- 
sequently intermarried with one John Ryan, by whom she bore a child, named 
Samuel F. Ryan, the present claimant, who was born in the lifetime of his half 
brother and sister. 

In December, 1855, the child Mary died, and subsequently the child William also 
died — they both being of tender years — he leaving no brother or sister of the whole 
blood, but leaving his mother and the claimant, his half brother on the side of the 
mother. 

At the June term, 1857, of the chancery court of the northern chancery division of 
Alabama a decree was rendered in a suit brought by the trustees to obtain construc- 
tion of the deed of trust, the decree setting forth the legal and equitable rights of the 
Sarties in interest, whereby it was decided that one-third of the estate of Gabriel M. 
[oore became vested, under the laws of Alabama, in his widow, now Mrs. Ryan, and 
that two-thirds descended to his two children, then deceased, and passed on the death 
of the first to the other, and on the death of the second to the half brother, the present 
claimant. 

Subsequently, in 1861, the mother, now Mrs. Ryan, also died, and under the laws 
of Alabama one-half of her inherited property passed to her second husband and the 
remaining one-half to her child, the present claimant, thereby vesting five-sixths of 
the estate of Gabriel M. Moore in the present claimant, Samuel F. Ryan. 

II. After the death of the child William and of Mrs. Ryan, her second husband, 
John Ryan, was appointed administrator of their estates. He continued to reside on 
and manage the plantation, but had been a man without property and contributed 
nothing of his own to the business. In 1873 he preferred a claim for the property 
taken from the plantation to the Southern Claims Commission, claiming that he owned 
the whole of it, which claim was dismissed because his loyalty was not established. 

III. Samuel Ryan, the present claimant, was born in July, 1855, and at the time of 
the taking of the property was 8 years old. The court finds him to have been loyal by 
reason of his tender years. He was living on the plantation when the property was 
taken. No guardian appears to have been appointed to protect his interests. 

IV. If the father of the claimant be regarded as his natural guardian the claimant 
was the equitable owner of five-sixths of the property taken from the plantation, the 
reasonable value of such five-sixths being the sum of two thousand seven hundred and 
twelve dollars ($2,712). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

V. A claim was originally presented by claimant's father, John Ryan, to the South- 
ern Claims Commission, in his own name, seeking to recover for the whole of the prop- 
erty in his own right, said Samuel F. Ryan being at the time of such presentation 18 
years of age. It appears that the time allowed by the act of March 3, 1871, for the pre- 
sentation of claims to said Southern Claims Commission expired while said Samuel F. 
Ryan was still a minor. Upon becoming advised of his legal rights in the premises 
the claimant, Samuel F. Ryan, petitioned Congress for relief , which action resulted in 
the reference of this claim to this court for a rinding of facts in accordance with the 
provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 15 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether or not there has been 
laches or negligence in the presentation of this claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 16, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. 

TRUSTEES OF THEfMISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF GRAVELLY 

SPRINGS, ALA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11707. Trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly 
Springs, Alabama, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 4012, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, at Gravelly Springs, Alabama . 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
Eriated, to the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, at Gravelly Springs, in 
auderdale County, Alabama, the sum of one thousand dollars for appropriation and 
use of the material of their church building by the Federal troops during the civil 
war between the States." 

The trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly Springs, Ala., appeared 
and filed their petition in the court May 26, 1904, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the winter of 1864 the military forces of the United States, under 
command of General Wilson, took possession of the church building of the Mission- 
ary Baptist Church at Gravelly Springs, Ala., and removed the said building, using 
the same for building winter quarters; that said building was about 45 by 60 feet, 
and was comparatively new, having been constructed about the year 1855, and was 
reasonably worth at the time of its removal the sum of $1,000. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly 
Springs, Ala., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the winter of 1864 the military forces of the United States, under proper 
authority, tore down the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly Springs, Ala., and 
used the material therein for building winter quarters, the reasonable value of the 
materials so taken and used being the sum of seven hundred and twenty-five dollars 
($725), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

W'-' By the Court. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy. F 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



16 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, HUNTSVILLE, ALA. 

]Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11017. Trustees of Missionary Baptist Church of Huntsville, 
Ala., successor to the Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville, Ala., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On December 5, 1901, Senate bill No. 1064 was introduced in the Fifty-seventh 
Congress, which bill reads as follows: 

' ' A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of the Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville, Madison County, 

Alabama. 

" Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to J. H. Beadle and J. W. Blake, trustees of the Primitive Baptist Church, of Hunts- 
ville, Madison County, Alabama, the sum of four thousand dollars, in full compen- 
sation for use, occupation, and damage to said church building by the United States 
Army during the late war of the rebellion." 

On March 3, 1903, said bill was referred to this court, by resolution of the United 
States Senate, for findings of fact under section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States, residing in the county of Madison, 
State of Alabama, and are the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Hunts- 
ville, Ala.; that said Missionary Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala., is the successor 
to the Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville, Ala., now no longer in existence; 
that during the late civil war said Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala., 
was the owner of a certain substantial brick church building, used by said church as 
a house of worship, standing in the town of Huntsville, Ala.; that during said war the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said building 
and used and occupied the same and later removed therefrom a great portion of the 
material of which it was constructed, this resulting in the total destruction of said 
building, which at the time and place of taking and destruction was reasonably worth 
the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war the Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala., 
remained, as an organization, loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During the said war the military forces of the United States took possession of 
and used the church building described in the petition for hospital and other purposes, 
and in consequence of such use and occupation the pews, pulpit, and other furnishings 
therein were removed and destroyed by said military forces, and the building was 
otherwise damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear. The reasonable value of the 
rental of said building and damages in excess of wear and tear wac then and there 
seventeen hundred and sixty dollars ($1,760), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

III. It appears from the evidence that the Missionary Baptist Church of Hunts- 
ville, Ala., which organization appears before the court as present claimant, is the 
successor in interest to said Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala. 

IV. Said claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 17 

TRUSTEES OF NORTH ALABAMA COLLEGE, HUNTSVILLE, ALA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12408. Trustees of the North Alabama College, of Huntsville, 

Ala., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for the destruction of a building and the use of its materials for the 
comfort of the United States Army during the civil war. On the 18th of June, 1906, 
the United States Senate referred to this court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 3341, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of certain churches, Masonic lodges, and colleges in the State of Alabama, and 

for other purposes. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to claimants in the act named the several sums appropriated herein, the same being 
in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in each case as a full 
and final release and discharge of their respective claims for use, occupation, and 
damage to their buildings and grounds by United States military authorities during 
the civil war, namely: 

******* 

"To the trustees of the North Alabama College, of Huntsville, Alabama, twenty 
thousand dollars. " 

* * ***** 

The claimant appeared in this court July 9, 1906, and filed his petition, in which 
it is substantially averred that: 

1. The North Alabama College was a corporation of purely educational, eleemosy- 
nary character, and was loyal to the United States, and that the board of trustees of 
the said North Alabama College never applied any of the corporate funds in aid or 
comfort of the rebellion, and that as trustees were loyal to the United States. 

2. The board of trustees of the said North Alabama College commenced in 1859 to 
erect a college building; that said building was substantially completed in 1864, and 
that in 1864 or 1865 the value of said building as it stood was at least $23,000. 

3. The United States troops under the command of Brig. Gen. D. H. Stanley were 
encamped in and around Huntsville, Ala., in 1864-5, and that in, to wit, 1864 or 1865, 
said Brigadier-General Stanley ordered his troops to tear down the said building of 
the North Alabama College and to v use the bricks and other materials to build chimneys 
for hospital tents and for other purposes for the use and comfort of the United States 
Army, and that in pursuance of said orders from said General Stanley the military forces 
of the United States did tear down the said building of the North Alabama College and 
use its materials as so ordered. 

4. Claimants therefore claim to be justly entitled from the United States to the sum 
of $23,000. 

The case was submitted on loyalty and merits without argument, on February 18, 
1907. 

Messrs. Herbert & Micou submitted evidence and brief for the claimants, and the 
Assistant Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, submitted 
brief in behalf of the United States. 

_ The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs of counsel on both 
sides, makes, the" following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The court is not satisfied from the evidence that the claimant college was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the said war the military forces of the United States took possession of 
the brick building of the claimant situate in Huntsville, Ala., then in an unfinished 
condition, and tore down the building and appropriated the brick therefrom to the 
erection of a large number of chimneys and ovens for the use of the military forces of 
the United States then encamped near said city, and after being so used were left in 
camp when the military forces removed therefrom. The reasonable value of the brick 
so taken and used was at the time and place the sum of seven thousand six hundred 
dollars ($7,600). 

S. Eep. 382, 60-1 2 



18 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 
1887, as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason was shown why such was not done. 

. By the Court. 
Piled Feb. 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, A. D. 1908. 

[seai.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, COLORED, 

HUNTSVILLE, ALA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11601. Trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church 
(colored), Huntsville, Ala., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for a church building alleged to have been appropriated to the use 
of the Army by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. 
On'the 27th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill 
in the following words: 

"[S. 226, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of 

Huntsville, Alabama. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- 
propriated, to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of 
Huntsville, Alabama, the sum of five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church 
building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the re- 
bellion." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 10th day of April, 1907, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the winter of 1863-64 the military forces of the United States, under 
command of Brig. Gen. D. H. Stanley, took possession of the church building of the 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of Huntsville, Ala., and removed the 
said building, appropriating the material to the use of the Army in building quarters. 
That said building, furniture and fixtures, at the time they were so taken and appro- 
priated to the use of the Army, were reasonably worth the sum of $500 for which no 
payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1908. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. \ 

I. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of Huntsville, Ala., as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period, to wit, during the winter of 1863-64, the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building de- 
scribed in the petition and tore down the same and used the material thereof in the 
building of quarters for troops.' The reasonable value of the building so destroyed 
was at the time and place the sum of two hundred and twenty dollars ($220), no part 
of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-General's Department 
and disallowed October 3, 1866, for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the claim was 
referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set 
forth in the statement of the case, April 27, 1904. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 19 

No other competent evidence is adduced respecting the delay in the presentation 
and prosecution of the claim. 

- -h By the Court. 

Filed February 17, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NANNIE H. JONES AND OTHER HEIRS OF JOHN T. JONES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11866. Nannie H. Jones, Mary E. Hereford, John D. Here- 
ford, Mrs. Fannie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Mattie J. Orman, heirs of John T. Jones, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 14, 1905, Senate bill No. 6629, Fifty-eighth Congress, was introduced 
in the United States Senate, and on March 3, 1905, said bill was referred to this court 
by resolution of the Senate for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved 
March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the heirs of John T. Jones, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of John T. Jones, deceased, late of Madison 
County, Alabama, the sum of eleven thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars and 
fifty cents, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used 
by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of Octo- 
ber, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That all of petitioners are citizens of the United States; that all petitioners, save 
William F. Hereford, are residents of the county of Madison, State of Alabama; 
that said William F. Hereford is now residing in the Empire of Japan as a missionary. 

That during the late civil war petitioners Nannie H. Jones and Mary E. Hereford, 
with their sisters, Fannie J. Jones and Arie R. Hereford, and their brother, George 
Jones, owned certain real estate and personalty in common as heirs and distributees 
of the estate of their father, John T. Jones, deceased; that while said property was 
so owned in common by the petitioners and said three other children the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from said five coowners quar- 
termaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

15 mules and horses, at $125 each $1, 875 

10 mules, at $100 each 1, 000 

4 oxen, at $30 each 120 

21 large cattle, at $20 each 420 

25 hogs, at $5 each 125 

25 sheep, at $3 each 75 

250 bushels shelled corn, at $1 per bushel 250 

1| tons fodder, at $20 per ton : 30 

1,000 pounds bacon, at 15 cents per pound 150 

1,000 pounds pork, at 10 cents per pound 100 

57 cords wood, at $3 per cord 171 

Total 4, 316 

That of the property above described the petitioners Nannie H. Jones and Mary 
E. Hereford each owned an undivided one-fifth interest; that an undivided one-fifth 
interest therein was also owned by the mother of the petitioners John D. Hereford, 
Mrs. Fannie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Mattie J. Orman, to wit, by 
Mrs. Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones). 



20 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

That throughout the late civil war the petitioners Nannie H. Jones and Mary E. 
Hereford, and said decedent, Mrs. Fannie J. Hereford, the owners of undivided fifth 
interests in said property, remained loyal to the Government of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. During the late civil war Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones), Nannie H. Jones, 
and Mary E. Hereford (nee Jones), minor children of John T. Jones, deceased, were, 
by reason of their tender years, loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. Subsequent to the taking of the property described in the petition, Fannie J. 
Hereford (nee Jones) died, leaving as her heirs at law John D. Hereford, Mrs. Fan- 
nie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Martha J. Orman. 

III. During said war there was taken by the military forces of the United States 
for their use from the claimants herein (and other heirs of John T. Jones, deceased, 
not parties hereto), in Madison County, Ala., property of the kind and character 
described in the petition. The reasonable value of the interest of said three minor 
children of said John T. Jones, deceased, was, at the time and place of taking, the 
sum of $1,200, of which amount the heirs of said Fannie J. Hereford, to wit, John D. 
Hereford, Mrs. Fannie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Martha J. Orman, 
are entitled to one-third, $400, and the remaining $800 belongs equally to Nannie H. 
Jones and Mrs. Mary E. Hereford (nee Jones). No payment appears to have been 
made of any part thereof. 

IV. The claim embraced herein was never presented to any Department of the 
Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under 
the provisions of the Tucker Act, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given 
why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed 
to excuse the claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy 
except their tender years aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ARKANSAS. 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, HELENA, ARK. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11881. First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., v . The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

On February 2, 1905, the following bill, being Senate bill 7041, Fifty-eighth Con- 
gress, was introduced in the United States Senate: 

"A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the First Baptist Church of Helena, Arkansas, the sum of 
four thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, 
and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war. ' ' 

On April 27, 1905, said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United States 
Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 
1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. J. A. 
Van Orsdel, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The petitioners, being trustees of the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., allege that 
said church has been an organization existing at said place since 1852 ; that during the 
late civil war said church was the owner of certain lots situated at said place, upon which 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 21 

was a certain substantial frame building used and occupied by-said church as a place of 
worship ; that the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession 
of said building on or about July 12, 1862, and used and occupied the same for army 
purposes until about July 1, 1865, and during said occupation did greatly damage and 
injure said building; that the reasonable rental value of said building during said period 
of use and occupation, including damages to said building incident to such use and 
occupation, amounts to the sum of $4,450. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel 
on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., as an organiza- 
tion, remained loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said war the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., was the owner of cer- 
tain lots at Helena, Ark., upon which was situate a substantial frame building used by 
said church as a place of worship; on or about July 12, 1862, the United States military 
forces, under proper authority, took possession of said building and used and occupied 
the same for army purposes until on or about July 1, 1865, and during said occupation 
did greatly damage and injure said building. The reasonable rental value of said 
premises during said period of occupation, including damages to said building inci- 
dental to such occupation, amounts to the sum of seventeen hundred and ninety dollars 
($1,790). 

No payment appears to have been made on account thereof. 

III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 22,1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PINE BLUFF. ARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11701. Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, 

Ark., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

" [S. 3643. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not, otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the sum of five thousand 
dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to their church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' 

The trustees of the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court September 17, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
month of October, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the said Baptist Church, and used and occupied 
the same for hospital purposes from said date until about May, 1865. That said build- 
ing was constructed of brick, and was about 50 by 100 feet in dimensions, and contained 
the usual and necessary church furniture. That by reason of such occupancy the 
building was badly damaged, and extensive repairs were necessary to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was when the troops took possession. That the 
rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs 
necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupation 
commenced, was the sum of $5,000, for which no payment has beenrmade. 



22 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 31st day of October, 
1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- . 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., as 
a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the First 
Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., and used and occupied the same for military pur- 
poses. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the period it was 
used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the military forces of the United States took possession 
of the same, was the sum of nineteen hundred and sixty dollars ($1,960). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 6, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, CLARKSVILLE, 
fe£i ARK. 

Court of Claims.^Congressional case No. 11902. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
of Clarksville, Ark., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 6604, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

' ' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Johnson 

County, Arkansas. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Johnson 
County, Arkansas, the sum of six thousand dollars, for use, damage, and destruction 
of their church property by the Union troops during the war between the States." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Ark., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court July 26, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Decern 
ber, 1863, the military forces of the United States under command of Col. Marshall L. 
Stevenson took possession of the two church buildings of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South of Clarksville, Ark., and used the said church buildings as a commissary 
storehouse until on or about May 19, 1864, when, on the approach of the Confederate 
forces, the said buildings were totally destroyed by fire, by proper military authority, 
in order to prevent the capture of the commissary stores contained in said church 
buildings. The said buildings, at the time of the destruction as aforesaid, were rea- 
sonably worth the sum of $6,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of October, 
1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 23 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South of 
Clarksville, Ark., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that during the late 
war between the States, on or about December, 1863, the military forces of the United 
States took possession of the church buildings of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South of Clarksville, Ark., and used said church buildings as commissary store- 
houses until about May 19, 1864, when, on the approach of the Confederate forces, 
the said buildings were totally destroyed by fire, by proper military authority of the 
United States, to prevent the capture of tbe commissary stores contained in said 
church buildings. The said buildings at the time of the destruction were reasonably 
worth the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000). 

For the use and occupation of said buildings from December, 1863, to May 19, 
1864, the evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the same was rea- 
sonably worth the sum of four hundred dollars ($400), or in all four thousand four 
hundred dollars ($4,400), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 

HELENA, ARK. 

Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11706. Trustees of Old School Presbyterian Church at 

Helena, Ark., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 3940, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Arkansas. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- 
ica in Congress assevibled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the trustees of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, 
Arkansas, the sum of seven thousand dollars, for use of and damage to the church 
building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the 
rebellion." 

The trustees of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Ark., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court August 22, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about July, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession 
of the church building of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Ark., and 
used and occupied the same for military purposes until May, 1865 ; that by reason of 
such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building 
during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took 
possession, was the sum $7,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of January, 
1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



24 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Old School Presbyterian Church at Helena, 
Arkansas, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the 
late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for a period of eighteen' months, used, occupied, 
and damaged the church building of the Old School Presbyterian Church at Helena, 
Arkansas. Such use and occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took 
possession of the same, was reasonably worth the sum of nineteen hundred dollars 
($1,900), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 5, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CALIFORNIA. 

JOHN M. FORSYTH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9982. John M. Forsyth v. The United States.] . 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the volunteer military forces of the State of Nevada for their 
use during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians in Nevada, was transmitted 
to the Court by the Committee on Claims, United States Senate, of the Fifty-sixth 
Congress, on the 11th day of April, 1899. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of March, 1904. 

George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. 
That in the spring of 1860 he was a resident of the Territory of Nevada and volunteered 
to serve under Maj. William Ormsby in a volunteer organization raised to repel the 
attacks of the Piute Indians, who were at the time raiding in the Territory of Nevada. 
That this volunteer organization was raised by the citizens in order to defend the 
Territory from the attacks of said Indians, there being at the time no United States 
troops in the Territory or any authorized militia of the Territory. 

2. That he furnished for the use of said organization various supplies, as herein- 
after set forth, and in a battle with said Indians in the spring of 1860 the Indians 
repulsed the volunteer organization forces and captured the horses, supplies, saddles, 
and other equipments furnished by this claimant. That he claims pay from the 
United States for the following property: 

5 horses furnished to Captain Ormsby' s rangers, in good condition and sound, 

of the just value at the time furnished of $125 each. $625 

5 large mules furnished to Captain Ormsby' s rangers, in good condition and 

sound and of the just value at the time they were furnished of $125 each 625 

Cash paid out as expenses for the outfit of the Ormsby rangers 1, 000 

2 double-barreled shotguns furnished at said time and place, of the just value 

of $125 each ; '. 250 

2 large navy revolvers furnished at said time and place, the just value of same 

being 150 

Powder and shot furnished at said time and place to aid in fitting out said 

company 100 

Blankets, saddles, bridles, furnished to Ormsby rangers at said time, being in 

good condition and of good quality 900 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 25 

Barley, hay, and feed supplied to the horses of said military company at said 
time, before leaving Carson City to fight the said Piute Indians, of good 
quality and valued when delivered, at $575 

Cash advanced and paid out at said time in equipping the military company 

organized and commanded by Capt. Jack Hays to suppress said Piute Indians. 750 

Services rendered as an enlisted volunteer in the Ormsby rangers, organized 
to fight Indians then raiding in Nevada, 45 days for self and horse at $10 
per day 425 

Cash paid, outfit and horse, hire of 2 volunteers supplied by claimant and who 
served in said Ormsby rangers 45 days each at $10 per day each, the service 
being rendered at the time and place and of the just value of $425 each 850 

Cash paid out and advances to equip 2 men who served in Jack Hays's rangers 
at the same time and place, 30 days each at $10 per day for their services, 
horse hire, and equipments '. 600 

Total 6,850 

3. That a claim for said property, with evidence therein, was on the 24th day of 
October, 1890, presented to the State board of examiners of Nevada, the items of 
said claim being as hereinbefore recited and being for sum of six thousand eight 
hundred and fifty dollars ($6,850), under the act of the legislature of said State as 
follows, to wit, An act entitled "An act relative to the proving of Indian war claims, " 
approved February 27, 1885, and February 13, 1889, respectively. (State Statutes of 
Nevada for 1885, p. 47, and for 1889, pp. 32, 33.) 

That final action was not taken upon this claim by the State board of examiners 
of Nevada, but the same was reported to the Governor of Nevada, being one of a list 
of cases marked "Action deferred. " (Rep. Secretary of State, 1889-90.) 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel of both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series of 
raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory, and in April, 
1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people and threat- 
ened the whites with extermination. 

II. It became necessary for the protection of the life and property of the settlers 
in and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a 
company of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized 
composed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, 
aggregating 125 or 130 men under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This 
company proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred; met them in a 
fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great 
loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this cam- 
paign was used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, 
the survivors returning to their homes. 

Immediately after these events home guards were formed and a regular force of 
volunteers were formed recruited from residents of Carson and Virginia City, and 
other neighboring places, and requests for aid were sent to California, and in 
response several companies of volunteers and one of the regular United States sol- 
diers were sent across the mountains and the whole force was placed under the com- 
mand of Col. John C. Hays. This force, composed of several hundred men, moved 
against the Indians, who speedily retreated and after some small fights, surrendered 
and sued for peace, which was granted. 

III. These forces under Maj. William Ormsby and Colonel Hays were provisioned 
and equipped by contributions from citizens of both Nevada and California. It was 
necessary to the success of the expeditions that the soldiers should be furnished with 
horses and feed, arms, ammunition, clothing, and provisions, all of which was either 
contributed by citizens upon request or impressed by the officers. 

IV. In April, 1860, claimant resided at Carson, Nev., and was the owner of a number 
of horses and mules. He took an active interest in aiding in the organization of the vol- 
unteers under Major Ormsby and later those under Colonel Hays, and enlisted in each 
organization. 

V. At the request of Maj. William Ormsby claimant gave his services to aiding in 
recruiting volunteers for Ormsby 's company and furnished supplies for the use of said 
organization, the same being actually used by them in the campaign against the 
Indians, and being reasonably worth at the time the sum of two thousand seven 
hundred and twenty-eight dollars ($2,728), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 



26 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

^VI. The evidence does not establish to the satisfaction of the court the supply of cash 
by the claimant. «- 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of December, 1904.}' 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

• Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VINNIE J. THOMPSON, EXECUTRIX. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10006. Vinnie J. Thompson, executrix of James 
M. Thompson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the volunteer military forces of the State of Nevada, for 
their use during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians in Nevada, was 
transmitted to the court by the Committee on Claims of the United States Senate, 
Fifty-sixth Congress, on the 8th day of February, 1900, under the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of January, 1904. 
George A. & William B. King appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

I. That she is the executrix of James M. Thompson, nominated as such in his will, 
which has not yet been offered for probate, owing to the fact that there was no estate 
to be administered other than this claim; that said decedent was a citizen of the 
United States, and during the year 1860 was a resident of the State of Nevada. 

LL. That the following property, belonging to the said James M. Thompson, was 
furnished by him in Nevada in the year 1860, for the use of the volunteer troops 
which were organized for the purpose of suppressing the Piute Indian outbreak in 
February, 1860: 

2 large work mules, at 8750 each §1, 500 

2 large work horses, at S700 each 1, 400 

1 large fruit wagon 500 

2 sets double heavy harness, at $150 300 

1,000 pounds bacon, at 50 cents a pound 500 

100 pounds barley, at 40 cents a pound 400 

500 pounds corned beef, at 40 cents a pound 200 

500 pounds corned pork, at 40 cents per pound 250 

2,000 pounds flour, at 40 cents a pound 800 

12 head American horses, at $300 each. 3, 600 

12 riding saddles and bridles, worth S40 each 480 

Total 9,930 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel of both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series of 
raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory; and in April, 
1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people, and threatened 
the whites with extermination. 

II. It became necessary, for the protection of the life and property of the settlers 
in and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a 
company of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized, 
composed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, 
aggregating 125 or 130 men, under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This com- 
pany proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred, met them in a fight 
at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great loss. 
Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this campaign 
were used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, 
the survivors returning to their homes. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 27 

III. A company of soldiers from the United States Regular Army reached the 
locality some days after these events, crossing the mountains to reach there. 

IV. A large number of the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby were not sup- 
plied with horses and provisions, and it became necessary for the whole company to 
be supplied with horses, arms, ammunition, rations, feed for horses, and the snow 
being from ten to twelve feet deep it was necessary to carry all the supplies along. 
The citizens contributed to the general fund in supplies and money, and Major 
Ormsby, as commanding officer of the company, received and apportioned the sup- 
plies and met the expense of subsisting the men and horses during the time between 
the organization of the company and the departure for Pyramid Lake. 

V. In the year 1860 James M. Thompson resided in Carson City, Nev., and was 
engaged in the business of selling merchandise, dealing in live stock and real estate. 
He was the owner of the property and furnished to Maj. William Ormsby and the 
volunteers under him for use in the campaign against the Piute Indians, as stated in 
the preceding findings, the value of said property being the sum of $3,730. No pay- 
ment appears to have been made therefor. 

VI. The claimant herein alleges in her petition that she is named as executrix in 
the will of James M. Thompson, but no evidence has been produced to show that 
such will has been admitted to probate and she has not produced letters testamentary. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANK J. McWORTHY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10003. Frank J. McWorthy v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the volunteer forces of the State of Nevada, for their use 
during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians in Nevada, was transmitted 
to the court by the Committee on Claims, United States Senate, of the Fifty-sixth 
Congress, on the 8th day of February, 1900, under the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 26th day of October, 1903, 
George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California, 
and that during the outbreak of the Piute Indians in 1860 he resided in the State of 
Nevada. 

2. That in the spring of 1860 the Piute Indians raided the stock farms of the set- 
tlers on Carson River, in the vicinity of Virginia City, Territory of Nevada, and killed 
several people, and there being no troops in the vicinity to protect the settlers it 
became necessary to organize a company of volunteers, which company was placed 
under the command of William M. Ormsby, who proceeded to direct a fight against 
said Indians, in which battle the white people were totally defeated. 

3. That claimant, under the necessity of equipping this organization under Captain 
Ormsby, furnished for the use of said comapny, at the request of Capt. William M. 
Ormsby, the property described in the following list, and that said property was 
taken and used by the members of said organization in the campaign against the 
Piute Indians and was never returned to the claimant: 

1 saddle horse $300 

1 mule 300 

1 pair of revolvers and holsters 50 

1 blanket, saddle, and bridle 50 

Total 700 



28 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series Of 
raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory, and in April, 
1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people and threatened 
the whites with extermination. 

II. It became necessary for the protection of the life and property of the settlers in 
and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a 
company of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized 
composed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, 
aggregating 125 to 130 men, under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This 
company proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred, met them in a 
fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with 
great loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this 
campaign was used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid 
Lake, the survivors returning to their homes. 

III. A company of soldiers from the United States Regular Army reached the 
locality some days after these events, crossing the mountains to reach there. 

IV. A large number of the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby were not sup- 
plied with horses and provisions, and it became necessary for the whole company to 
be supplied with horses, arms, ammunition, rations, feed for horses, and the snow 
being from 10 to 12 feet deep, it was necessary to carry all the supplies along. The 
citizens contributed to the general fund in supplies and money, and Major Ormsby, 
as commanding officer of the company, received and apportioned the supplies and 
met the expense of subsisting the men and horses during the time between the organ- 
ization of the company and the departure for Pyramid Lake. 

V. The claimant in 1860 was a rancher and cattle raiser and owner of a horse, mule, 
saddle, blanket, bridle, and a pair of revolvers, which was in the stable of John All- 
man at Virginia City, and which was, at the request of Maj. William Ormsby, taken 
by the agents of said Ormsby for the use of the volunteer company in the campaign 
against the Indians. Said property being worth at the time the sum of four hundred 
and fifty dollars ($450), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THOMAS RODGERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10005. Thomas Rodgers v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
war for the suppression of the Piute Indians, was transmitted to the court by the Com- 
mittee on Claims of the United States Senate of the Fifty-sixth Congress on the 8th 
day of February, 1900, under the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of October, 1903. 
George A. & Wm. B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California, 
and that in 1860 or 1861 he was a resident of the State of Nevada. 

2. That in April and May, 1860, the Piute Indians in and about western Nevada 
were in a state of insurrection, seizing property of the settlers and endangering their 
lives, and that it became necessary to form a company of volunteer militia to suppress 
the Indians. This company was organized and placed under the command of Maj. 
William Ormsby, who proceeded against the Indians and was defeated with a loss of 
most of his command. That in these operations against the Indians it was necessary 
to furnish horses, mules, and supplies for the use of the volunteers. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 29 

3. That the following property belonging to claimant was furnished by him to the 
volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby in Nevada in 1860: 

1 saddle horse $275. 00 

1 saddle 25.00 

1 bridle and blanket 10. 00 

1 large pack mule 125. 00 

1 pack saddle and blanket 40. 00 

1 pair of large blankets 16. 00 

Total 391.00 

This claim was first presented to this court as an Indian depredation claim (No. 
5608), but, the Piute Indians not having been in amity, the case was presented to 
Congress, and was referred to this court by the Fifty-sixth Congress under the act of 
March 3, 1887, for a finding of facts. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel of both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series of 
raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory, and in April, 
1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people and threatened 
the whites with extermination. 

II. It became necessary for the protection of the life and property of the settlers in 
and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a com- 
pany of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized com- 
posed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, 
aggregating 125 or 130 men, under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This com- 
pany proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred, and met them in a 
fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great 
loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this cam- 
paign was used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, 
the survivors returning to their homes. 

III. A company of soldiers from the United States Regular Army reached the local- 
ity some days after these events, crossing the mountains to reach there. 

IV. A large number of the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby were not supplied 
with horses and provisions, and it became necessary for the whole company to be sup- 
plied with horses, arms, ammunition, rations, feed for horses, and, the snow being 
from 10 to 12 feet deep, it was necessary to carry all the supplies along. The citizens 
contributed to the general fund in supplies and money, and Major Ormsby, as com- 
manding officer of the company, received and apportioned the supplies and met the 
expense of subsisting the men and horses during the time between the organization of 
the company and the departure for Pyramid Lake. 

V. The claimant in 1860 was engaged in business in Virginia City, Nev., and was the 
owner of the property claimed for. He furnished to the command under Maj. Wil- 
liam Ormsby supplies, and the same were used by the men in said command in the 
campaign against the Piute Indians, and were wholly lost and never returned to the 
claimant; the value of said property being the sum of $440, for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

VI. The claim was presented to the court as an Indian depredation claim in 1891, 
which has been consolidated with this claim as referred to the court by the Fifty-sixth 
Congress for a finding of facts under the act of March 3, 1887. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



30 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
RICHARD EMMONS AND TWENTY-NINE OTHERS. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 10375 to 10375-29, inclusive. Richard Emmons, No. 10375; 
George C. Acton, No. 10375-1; George W. Ballinger, No. 10375-2; Edward R. Barbour, No. 10375-3; 
James Breast, No. 10375-4; George R. Cook, No. 10375-5; Joshua Cooksey, No. 10375-6; John D. Davis, 
No. 10375-7; Philip A. Delano, No. 10375-S; Oliver A. Emmons, No. 10375-9; William B. Flood, No. 
10375-10; Samuel S. Fowler, No. 10375-11; Theodore Gates, No. 10375-12; Thomas J. Harrison, No. 
10375-13; Richard Holland, No. 10375-14; John T. Hardester, No. 10375-15; William Kemp, No. 
10375-16; William H. Krepps, No. 10375-17; Abraham Lee, No. 10375-18; George E. Luckett, No. 
10375-19; William Morris, No. 10375-20; William E. Miller, No. 10375-21; Charles M. Nicholson, No. 
10375-22; John W. Reed, No. 10375-23; Richard Smith, No. 10375-24; Isaac Scott, No. 10375-25; John 
A. Smith, No. 10375-26; Isaac Smallwood, No. 10375-27; Isaac Tillman, No. 10375-28; Augustus M. 
Warfleld, No. 10375-29, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Senate bill 4978, second session, Fifty-sixth Congress, providing for the payment of 
the claims of the above-named claimants, was referred to the court by resolution of 
the United States Senate February 14, 1901, under the provisions of section 14 of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

Thereafter the claimants named above, and each of them, offered and filed their 
respective petitions herein, in which they, and each of them, aver substantially as 
follows: 

That from the 21st day of March, 1878, to the 21st day of September, 1882, they were 
employed by the Government of the United States in the Ordnance Department of 
the Navy, at Washington Navy- Yard, D. C; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of 
the Navy issued the order referred to in claimants' petitions, known as Circular No. 8, 
and set forth in Finding I herein. 

That during the six months in each year from the date of said order to the 21st of 
September, 1882, they worked, during all or a portion of the time they were so employed, 
ten hours in each calendar day, and that they, and each of them, were paid for only 
eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period, and. 
that they, and each of them, are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respective 
petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours 
per day. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on the 8th day of 
May, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 

, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 

protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS^OF^ FACT. 

I. Between the 21st of March, 1878, and the 21st of September, 1882, the claimants, 
and each of them, above-named were in the employ of the United States in the navy- 
yard, Washington, D. C, during which time the following order was in force: 

[Circular No. 8.] 

Navy Department, 
Washington, March 21, 1878. 
The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular of 
October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and shore 
stations: 

The working hours will be: From March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p.m.; 
from September 22 to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., with the usual intermis- 
sion of one hour for dinner. 

The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men, and 
laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a 
day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages. 

The commandants will notify the men employed or to be employed of these condi- 
tions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. 

R. W. Thompson, 
Secretary of the Navy. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



31 



II. Said claimants, and each of them, while in the employ of the United States as 
aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective 
names in excess of eight hours a day, and at the prices below stated, to wit: 



Name of claimant. 



Number 


Rate per 


of hours. 


day. 


520H 


$2.75 


658J4 


3.00 


35£ 


1.50 


294^ 


1.75 


215§f 


2.00 


984 


2.25 


312M 


1.25 


2834jf 


1.50 


286 3 3 s 


2.25 


255 


.75 




1.00 


335 


1.25 


206J4 


1.50 


164 


2.50 


1,12854 


3.00 


480| 


2.75 


440if 


2.99 


44714 


3.00 


17& 


1.75 


1,310x3b 


2.00 


872|| 


2.00 


39% 


2.25 


262J4 


2.50 


ODUsy^jj 


2.75 


160 


3.25 


568ff 


1.50 


10744 


1.50 


647| 


1.75 


417^£- 


1.50 


321 


1.75 


563J 5 


1.50 


556y 8 B > 5 


1.75 


74014 


2.75 


85 


3.00 




2.00 


419 


2.25 


261 T 7 B 


2.50 


78„ 7 5 


1.75 


405113 


2.00 


1914 


2.25 


32 


2.25 


846 r fs 


2.50 


3104 


2.75 


433 T 7 ^ 


1.75 


207ff 


2.00 


122 


2.25 


140| 


2.50 


l,131f4 


2.00 


128§| 


2.25 


326!%% 


2.50 


96H 

744> 


2.75 


2.00 


618# B 


2.25 


66 


2.00 


956I- 7 ; 


2.25 


261& 


2.50 


743f g 


1.75 


H9§ 


2.00 


641|f 


2.00 


291 


2.25 


10 


1.50 


276^ 


1.75 


48444 


2.00 


329JI 


2.50 


86f 


.96J 


29841 


1.10 


285? 


1.50 


776| 


2.00 


284 


.50 


564J 


.75 


151 


1.00 


248 


1.50 


204f 


1.75 


913/s 


2.50 


185f 


2.75 


90 


3.00 



Richard Emmons . . . 
George C. Acton 

George W. Ballinger 
Edward R. Barbour 



James Breast 

George R. Cook , 

Joshua Cooksey 

John D. Davis 

Philip A. Delano 

Oliver A. Emmons 

William B. Flood 

Samuel S. Fowler 

Theodore Gates 

Thomas J. Harrison. . 

Richard Holland 

John T. Hardester 

William Kemp 

William H. Eiepps 

Abraham Lee 

George E. Luckett 

William Morris , 

William E. Miller 

Charles M. Nicholson. 

John W. Reed 

Richard Smith 

Isaac Scott 

John A. Smith 

Isaac Smallwood 

Isaac Tillman 

Augustus M. Warfield 



32 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Of the above-named claimants, Edward R. Barbour, James Breast, Richard Smith, 
and Isaac Scott, and each of them, while in the employ of the United States as afore- 
said, worked on certain days during said period less than eight hours and were paid for 
eight hours work on said days. The aggregate number of hours they so worked, the 
rates of pay per day, and the amount of excess payment is as follows, and has been 
deducted in arriving at the amounts underpaid, as hereinafter set forth in Finding III: 

Edward R. Barbour, 29£ hours, at $1.20 per day, making an overpayment of $4.43. 

James Breast, 11J hours, at $2.75 per day, making an overpayment of $3.87. 

Richard Smith, 8^ hours, at $2.25 per day, making an overpayment of $2.39. 

Isaac Scott, 21£ hours at $1.20 per day, making an overpayment of $3.19. 

III. If it is considered that eight hours constituted a day's work under the order of 
the Secretary of the Navy as aforesaid, then the claimants and each of them have been 
underpaid the sums set forth opposite their respective names, as follows: 

Richard Emmons, four hundred and twenty-five dollars and eighty-four cents 



George C. Acton, one hundred and fifty- two dollars and fifty-seven cents ($152.57). 

George W. Ballinger, one hundred and eighty-two dollars and forty-four cents 
($182.44). ' 

Edward R. Barbour, one hundred and ninety-three dollars and fifty-six cents 
($193.56). 

James Breast, four hundred and nineteen dollars and forty-one cents ($419.41). 

George R. Cook, four hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-eight cents 
($497.88). 

Joshua Cooksey, three hundred and thirty-one dollars and thirty cents ($331.30). 

John D. Davis, three hundred and thirty dollars and thirteen cents ($330.13). 

Philip A. Delano, three hundred and thirty-seven dollars and eighty-one cents 
($337.81). 

Oliver A. Emmons, one hundred and six dollars and sixty cents ($106.60). 

William B. Flood, one hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighty cents ($161.80). 

Samuel S. Fowler, one hundred and forty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($148.50). 

Theodore Gates, two hundred and twenty -seven dollars and thirty-one cents 
($227.31). 

Thomas J. Harrison, two hundred and eighty-six dollars and forty-seven cents 
($286.47). 

Richard Holland, two hundred and twenty-two dollars and sixty-eight cents 
($222.68). 

John T. Hardester, one hundred and ninety-four dollars and sixteen cents ($194.16). 

William Kemp, three hundred and eighty dollars and one cent ($380.01). 

William H. Krepps, two hundred and twenty-four dollars and ninety-seven cents 
($224.97). 

Abraham Lee, three hundred and nineteen dollars and twelve cents ($319.12). 

George E. Luckett, one hundred and thirty-five dollars and six cents ($135.06). 

William Morris, three hundred and fifty-nine dollars and ninety-eight cents 
($359.98). 

William E. Miller, three hundred and sixty-seven dollars and twenty-eight cents 
($367.28). 

Charles M. Nicholson, one hundred and ninety-two dollars and forty-nine cents 
($192.49). 

John W. Reed, two hundred and forty-two dollars and twenty-three cents ($242.23). 

Richard Smith, two hundred and eighty-four dollars and four cents ($284.04). 

Isaac Scott, one hundred and one dollars and eighty-three cents ($101.83). 

John A. Smith, one hundred and ninety-four dollars and sixteen cents ($194.16). 

Isaac Smallwood, eighty-nine dollars and fifty-four cents ($89.54). 

Isaac Tillman, ninety-one dollars and twenty-seven cents ($91.27). 

Augustus M. Warfield, three hundred and eighty-two dollars and ninety-nine cents 
$382.99). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 33 

ELIZABETH THOMAS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10915. Elizabeth Thomas v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OFJJCASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 27th day of June, 1902, by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate under an act of Congress -approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: ~s: 

"[S. 1853. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For thejrelief of Elizabeth|jThomas.| 

11 Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Elizabeth Thomas, of the District of Columbia, out of any 
moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of six thousand nine 
hundred and thirty dollars, for property and supplies taken and used during the late 
war." 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court, in which she makes the 
following allegations: 

" That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Brightwood, in the District of 
Columbia; that she has always borne true faith and allegiance to the Government of 
the United States of America and never voluntarily aided or abetted rebellion against 
said Government, and that she is the sole owner of the claim hereinafter stated, no part 
of which has ever been aliened or discharged; that during the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 
1864, and 1865 claimant, together with her sister, Sarah Proctor Diggs, and her brother, 
George Proctor, was the owner of and lived upon a parcel of land consisting of about 10 
acres and improved by a dwelling house, outbuildings, etc., near said Brightwood, in 
the District of Columbia; that claimant's said brother, George Proctor, died intestate 
about the year 1884, leaving surviving him as his only hens at law the claimant and 
her said sister, Sarah Proctor Diggs, who died intestate about the year 1885, leaving 
surviving her as her only heir at law the claimant. 

"That on or about the 1st day of June, 1861, a detachment of United States troops, 
under the command of Gen. Isaac I. Stevens, came to claimant's said residence, and 
then and there, under the authority of the United States, took possession of said land 
and premises, and occupied and used the same until on or about June 1, 1865, thereby 
wholly dispossessing claimant and depriving her of the use and occupation of the same. 

"That during the month of July, 1863, a detachment of the Army of the United 
States tore down and destroyed claimant's said dwelling house and outbuildings and 
erected on the site thereof a fortification known as Fort Stevens. 

"That the erection of said fortification permanently injured and damaged claim- 
ant's said land. 

"That detachments of the United States Army took and used during the occupancy 
of said land and premises as aforesaid certain supplies. 

"That said United States troops, during the period of their occupancy as aforesaid, 
destroyed claimant's garden, orchard, and shrubbery, and took and used her fences for 
firewood. 
§§"That the items of damage and property taken are of the following value, to wit: 

1 two-story six-room dwelling house, torn down and destroyed $2, 000 

Outbuildings, torn down and destroyed 600 

Garden, orchard, shrubbery, and fencing, destroyed and used 1, 000 

Rental value of land and premises for four years, at $30 per month 1, 440 

Permanent damage to land by erection of fortification 1, 000 

And stores and supplies of the value of 4, 467 

Amounting in all to - . . 10, 507 

"The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of October, 
1904. William Pv. Andrews appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States." 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 3 



34 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Elizabeth Thomas, the claimant herein, dur- 
ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion resided in the Distiict of Columbia and 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

II. During said war, the claimant, her sister, Sarah Catherine Diggs, and her brother, 
George Proctor, were owners of a farm of 8 acres near Brightwood, in the District of 
Columbia. On said farm was a dwelling house, outbuildings, garden, and fencing. 
Sarah Catherine Diggs died in the year 1885 and George Proctor died in the year 1884, 
leaving the claimant herein the only hen at law. 

III. Troops belonging to the Army of the United States occupied said land, and 
during such occupancy it became a military necessity for them to, and they did, tear 
down a 2\ -story frame house, a stable with a barn over it, a cow shed, a corn house, 
a henhouse, a post and rail fence that inclosed the land, and a paling fence around 
a garden of 1 acre. They also cut down a small apple and peach orchard, damson 
trees, and many kinds of cherry trees, together with a lot of shrubbery, to build a 
fort. All of said buildings, fences, and trees were the property of claimant and her 
said brother and sister, and were situate on the said farm, and by inheritance subse- 
quently became claimant's sole property. 

A rifle pit was dug across the farm of claimant on the north side from east to west and 
across the farm on the west side from north to south, and Fort Stevens occupied about 
3 acres of said land ; said rifle pits and fortifications greatly decreased the value of said 
land for farming or any other purpose. 

IV. The destruction of said buildings and other damage to said land was a matter of 
military necessity. The commanding officer of the United States forces ordered the 
destruction of said buildings and damage to said land, founded upon said necessity 
and in the prosecution of belligerent operations against Confederate forces then threat- 
ening the city of Washington. 

V. The reasonable value for the use of the claimant's land and for the personal 
property taken for the use of the Army during the period stated is the sum of one 
thousand eight hundred and thirty-five dollars ($1,835), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

VI. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act of 
March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act of June 15, 
1878. Under the act of March 3, 1887, which provides that where there has been delay 
or laches in presenting a claim the court shall report whether there are "any facts 
bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation shall be 
removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to 
any established legal remedy," the claimant has proved that she can scarcely read and 
can not write; that she put the claim in the hands of Captain Howlett, of the Thirty- 
sixth New York, after the war; that he stated he would look after it, but died before 
doing anything; that all papers were put in his hands; that she tried to get the papers 
back after the death of her attorney, but did not succeed, in consequence of which 
she thought she would get nothing. 

As to the question whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse 
the claimant the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the 
judgment and discretion of Congress. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 35 

HEBER L. THORNTON AND GRAYSON L. THORNTON, TRUSTEES. 

Court of Claims. No. 10235, Congressional. Heber L. Thornton and Grayson L. Thornton, trustees 
of the estate of Gottlieb C. Grammer, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 26th day of May, 1900, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

''ABILL For the relief of the heirs of Gottlieb C. Grammer, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
the sum of ten thousand dollars to the heirs of Gottlieb C. Grammer, late of the District 
of Columbia, deceased, for property taken for the use of the United States Army, in the 
war between the States, for the construction of the defenses of the city of Washington. 

" Sec. 2. That this act shall be in force from and after its passage. ' ' 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court on the 1st day of 
November, 1900, in which they make the following allegations: 

That they are all the heirs at law of Gottlieb C. Grammer, late of the District of 
Columbia, deceased; that he died in said District in 1858, and by his will appointed 
Julius E. Grammer and Christopher Grammer to execute the trusts therein contained; 
that William B. Todd was subsequently substituted by the court in place of Julius E. 
Grammer, who resigned; that Gottlieb C. Grammer died seized of a farm in the said 
District and the State of Maryland of about 215 acres, which was in the possession of 
said Todd and Grammer, trustees, in 1862; that in that year the United States military 
forces cut off the standing timber on 125 acres thereof and converted a portion of it, 
amounting to 3,000 cords, of the value of $10,000, to the use of the United States; that 
this was done by the forces acting under the direction of the chief engineer of defenses 
of Washington. 

On December 18, 1905, the court found that Christopher Grammer and William B. 
Todd, the trustees of the estate of decedent at the time of the taking of the property, 
were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

Subsequently, with the consent of the original claimants, the court, on the 16th day 
of March, 1906, substituted as claimants Heber L. Thornton and Grayson L. Thornton, 
who had been appointed by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, trustees of 
the will of said Gottlieb C. Grammer, in lieu of William B. Todd and Christopher 
Grammer, both deceased. 

The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. 

Mr. Philip Walker appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Mr. F. W. Collins, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. During the civil war timber, as described in the petition, was cut down from the 
farm of claimants' decedent in the District of Columbia by the military forces of the 
United States and used in fortifications, and some part of it for fuel; but how much 
was used for fuel does not appear. 

It does not appear what uses were made of the timber so used in the fortifications 
after the same were abandoned. 

II. The reasonable value of the timber so cut and used was the sum of twenty-three 
hundred and forty dollars ($2,340), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. Laches. — It appears from the evidence that the trustees of the decedent's 
estate were informed by Col. B. F. Alexander, in charge of the defenses of Washington, 
that the number of claims of this nature precluded the possibility of their consideration 
"except by a general and properly constituted commission appointed by authority of 
Congress or the War Department;" and that after the passage of the Bowman and 
Tucker acts the claim was presented to Congress and referred to this court under the 
provisions of the latter act May, 1900. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk-Court of Claims. 



36 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

GEORGIA. 

MARY M. BANKS, HEIR OF HENRY BANKS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12554. Mary M. Banks, sole heir of Henry Banks, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 27, 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

" [S. 1867, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Henry Banks, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- 
propriated, to the legal representative of the estate of Henry Banks, deceased, late 
of Fulton County, Georgia, the sum of twenty-four thousand six hundred dollars, 
the value of one hundred and twenty-three boxes of tobacco taken by the officers 
of the United States Army at Savannah, Georgia, in the month of December, eighteen 
hundred and sixty-four. ' ' 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court July 23, 1906, in which 
she makes the following allegations: 

That she is the sole heir of Henry Banks, deceased, and resides in Fulton County, 
Ga., where her decedent resided during the late civil war. 

That on or about December, 1864, her decedent was the owner of a certain quantity 
of manufactured tobacco which was in the office of the Southern Express Company 
at Savannah, Ga.; that during said month the military forces of the United States, 
under command of General Geary, took possession of said tobacco and appropriated 
the same to the use of the United States, as follows :| 

123 boxes of manufactured tobacco, averaging 100 pounds each, 12,300 pounds, 
at $2 : $24, 600 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of January, 
1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It does not appear from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Henry 
Banks, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's 
decedent in the office of the Southern Express Company at Savannah, Ga., tobacco 
as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the 
sum of fifteen thousand three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($15,375). Whether 
issued to the troops or sold and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United 
States does not appear. 

III. The claim was originally presented to the Commissioners of Claims, who 
disallowed the same for the reason that " The jurisdiction of this commission is limited 
to stores and supplies taken for the use of the Army or Navy * * ■* and does not 
necessarily embrace all kinds of property that may be valuable to the Government." 
No other action appears to have been taken by the claimant until the presentation 
of the claim to Congress and its reference to this court under the bill hereinbefore 
set out. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 37 

ARCHIBALD A. GRIGGS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11879. Archibald A. Griggs, administrator of estate of Archibald 
P. Griggs, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On February 2, 1905, Senate bill No. 7032, Fifty-eighth Congress, was introduced 
in the United States Senate, which said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of Nancy Griggs and the estate of A. P. Griggs, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to Nancy Griggs and the estate of A. P. Griggs, deceased, late 
of Cobb County, Georgia, the sum of one thousand one hundred and ninety-five 
dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by 
the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to this court on March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United 
States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Camp- 
bell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cobb, State 
of Georgia; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the 
estate of Archibald P. Griggs, deceased, late of said county and State; that during the 
late civil war said Archibald P. Griggs, now deceased, was a citizen of the United 
States, residing in said county of Cobb, State of Georgia; that during said war the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent for the 
use of the Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values 
below stated, to wit: 

1 horse $150 

6 head of cattle, at $25 each 150 

10 hogs, at $10 each 100 

10 sheep, at $4 each 40 

200 bushels of corn, at $1 a bushel 200 

10 acres of wheat for pasture 200 

6 tons of fodder, at $20 per ton 120 

16 cords of rails, at $3 per cord 48 

Total , 1, 008 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Archibald P. Griggs, was during the late civil war a citizen 
of the United States and a resident of the county of Cobb, State of Georgia, and through- 
out said war remained loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, tool: 
from claimant's decedent for the use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commis- 
sary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of 
taking were reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and sixty dollars ($760). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. The only tribunal which ever had jurisdiction of this claim was the Claims 
Commission, established by act approved March 3, 1871, and the time allowed for 
presenting claims to said Commission expired March 3, 1873. It appears in evidence 
that during said period the decedent was an invalid. The claim was never presented 
to any tribunal until its presentation to Congress, viz, in the Fifty-eighth Congress. 



38 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay 
or laches in the presentation of the claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 17, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ALBION W. KNIGHT AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. No. 11021, Congressional. Albion W. Knight, Thomas E. Walker, Paul Romeri, 
George H. Noble, W. A. Hansell, Arnold Broyles, Bobert C. Alston, William S. Elkin, jr., Benjamin 
Owens, Robert Sharpe, and Thomas H. Austin, rector, wardens, and vestrymen of St. Philip's Episco- 
pal Church, of Atlanta, Ga., v. the United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for da*mage to real estate by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was 
first transmitted to the court on March 2, 1891, by the Committee on War Claims of 
the House of Representatives, but was thereafter dismissed by this court. It was again 
referred to this court on March 3, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, 
under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the 
Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of Decem- 
ber, 1903. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in its petition, makes the following allegations: 

That the above-named persons are the rector, wardens, and vestrymen of St. Philip's 
Episcopal Church, of Atlanta, Ga. ; that said church was in existence before and during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and has continued ever since to be 
in existence at said place; that during said war the United States military authorities, 
acting under proper authority, did take possession of and tear down the following 
buildings then and there belonging to said church, and then and there of the reason- 
able value indicated below, to wit: 

One parsonage, 2 two-room cottages, and 1 office building, $3,925; that during said 
period the church building belonging to the said church was also used by said forces, 
as were also the premises upon which the same was situated, and that said building 
and premises were thereby greatly damaged — to wit, in the sum of $1,000 — all of the 
total value of $4,925; that said church gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs of counsel for both 
sides, makes the following jj£$ 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Philip's Episcopal Church, of Atlanta 
Ga., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of and tore down and used the material of certain 
of the buildings belonging to St. Philip's Episcopal Church, to wit, the parsonage, 
2 two-room cottages, and 1 office building, and used the material therefrom in the 
construction of quarters for the defendant's soldiers, which material was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of nineteen hundred dollars ($1,900), while the 
buildings as they stood before they were so taken possession of and torn down by the 
said military forces were reasonably worth the sum of thirty -seven hundred and sixty 
dollars ($3,760). 

III. In addition to the value of the buildings owned by the claimants so torn down, 
as aforesaid, the church building proper was injured by the use and occupation thereof 
by said military forces to the amount of eight hundred dollars 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 39 

IV. It is not shown that any claim for the property herein claimed for was ever 
presented to any Department of the Government until its presentation to Congress 
and its reference to this court as set forth in the statement herein. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 3, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of March, 1904. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF . THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF 

MARIETTA, GA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11631. Trustees of African Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Marietta, Ga., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, 

Georgia. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Georgia, the 
sum of six hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Ga., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court October 25, 1905, in which they make the fol- 
lowing allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about June, 
1864, the military forces of the United States under command of General Sherman, 
took possession of the church building of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of 
Marietta, Ga., and occupied the same for military purposes for a period of about three 
months. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was 
so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition 
in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was 
the sum of $600, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of March, 
1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP, FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the African Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
Marietta, Ga., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied for military pur- 
poses the church building belonging to the African Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
Marietta, Ga. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs 
incident to such occupation, was the sum of four hundred and twenty-five dollars 
(|425), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any officer or depart- 
ment of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this 
court as above set forth. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 26, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



40 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF JERUSALEM EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, 
EBENEZER, GA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12507. Trustees of Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of 
Ebenezer, Ga., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Effingham County, 
Georgia, the sum of seven hundred and eighty-six dollars, in payment for the destruc- 
tion of property of said church at said Ebenezer by the Federal forces in the year 
eighteen hundred and sixty-four." 

The trustees of Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga., ap- 
peared and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which they make 
the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Decem- 
ber 15, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of General 
Sherman, took possession of the church building and grounds of the Jerusalem Evan- 
gelical Lutheran Chruch, of Ebenezer, Ga., and during the use and occupation thereof 
used and destroyed the fencing and other property belonging to said church, which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of |736, for which no 
payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1907. ' „ 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga., as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took possession of the building described in the petition and used the same for 
military purposes. Such use and occupation, together with the damage to same and 
to the library and furniture and fence surrounding the same, was reasonably worth 
the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225), no part of which appears to 
have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 
3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why such was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 41 

CLEMENTINE VAUGHAN, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10439. Clementine Vaughan, administratrix of the estate of 
William M. Vaughan, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged, to have been taken 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression, of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by resolution of the 
United States Senate February 27, 1901, under the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1903. 
Messers. Ralston & Siddons appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is the administratrix of the estate of William M. Vaughan, deceased, who 
was a resident of Putnam County, State of Georgia, during the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion ; that during said war there were taken from her decedent by the mili- 
tary forces of. the United States under the command of Gen. W. T. Sherman, for the use 
of the Army, the following-described stores and supplies, to the value of $3,546: 

4 mules, at $150 each $600. 00 

2 horses, at $150 each 300. 00 

15 cattle, at $25 each 375. 00 

12 sheep, at $3 each 36. 00 

27 hogs, averaging 175 pounds each, 4,700 pounds 581. 50 

5 goats, at $1.50 7. 50 

30 stock hogs, at $3 each 90. 00 

400 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 400. 00 

100 hundredweight fodder, at $1 100. 00 

60 gallons sorghum sirup, at 60 cents per gallon 36. 00 

500 pounds bacon and lard, at 15 cents per pound 75. 00 

200 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 200. 00 

1,500 pounds lint cotton, at 30 cents per pound 450. 00 

2 buggies and harness 250. 00 

100 chickens, at 25 cents each 25. 00 

1 barrel of flour 15. 00 

1 sack salt 5. 00 

Total 3, 546. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following : P — gf 

I. That William M. Vaughan, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or 
stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Putnam County, State of 
Georgia, during said war, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the 
Army, stores and supplies of those above described, which at the time and place of 
taking were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand nine hundred and one dollars 
($1,901), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

No allowance is made for bacon and lard, buggies and harness, chickens, flour, 
and salt. 

III. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 1887 
(24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), "bearing upon the question whether there has been 
delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, 
or any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation 
should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having 
resorted to any established legal remedy," except that the claim was filed by the 
deceased claimant with the commissioners of claims under the act of March 3, 1871, 
but that he did not file any evidence in support thereof within the time fixed by law, 
and the claim was, consequently, reported as barred. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 9, 1903. 
A true copy. 

Test, this 14th day of December, 1903.1 
[seal.] John^ Randolph. 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



42 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

KANSAS. 

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11016. The Regents of the University of Kansas v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OP THE CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case is for the value of a hotel building in Lawrence, 
Kans., alleged to have been burned by a United States marshal's posse May 21, 1856, 
acting under a presentment of a United States grand jury. 

On March 12, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, the following bill 
was referred to the court under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the University of Kansas. 

"Whereas on or about the 20th day of May, 1856, a deputy United States marshal 
and Sheriff Jones, with a posse, acting directly on the findings of the United States 
grand jury called by Judge Le Compte of the United States court sitting at Lecompton, 
entered the town of Lawrence and destroyed the Free State Hotel, owned by the 
New England Emigrant Aid Company; and whereas some time thereafter said com- 
pany presented a claim for damages in the amount of twenty thousand dollars to the 
United States Government; and 

"Whereas the said company, before its dissolution, transferred said claim to the 
University of Kansas: Therefore 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to said University of Kansas, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, the sum of twenty thousand dollars, in full settlement 
of said claim." 

The claimant appeared and filed its petition in this court, in which it makes the 
following allegations: 

That it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas; that on the 
21st day of May, 1856, the New England Emigrant Aid Company, a corporation organ- 
ized and existing by virtue of the act of the legislature of Massachusetts, was the 
owner in fee simple of lots 21 and 23, on Massachusetts street, in the city of Lawrence, 
Kans., on which it had erected and owned a certain hotel, with necessary outbuild- 
ings, known as the "Free State Hotel," or "Eldridge House," which, exclusive of its 
furniture and exclusive of the value of the land, was worth $25,000; that on the 5th 
day of May, 1856, the grand jury of Douglas County, Territory of Kansas, made a 
presentment to the effect that ' ' the building known as the Free State Hotel had been 
constructed with a view to military occupation and defense, thereby endangering the 
public safety and encouraging rebellion to the country, and we respectfully recom- 
mend that steps be taken whereby this nuisance be abated." 

That subsequent to the making of said presentment J. B. Donelson, marshal of the 
first district court of the United States for the Territory of Kansas, on the 21st day of 
May, 1856, took to said city of Lawrence a large posse of border ruffians under the 
pretext of making the arrest of certain parties then in Lawrence; that said Donelson 
made the arrests and then turned the posse over to Deputy United States Marshal 
Samuel Jones, who thereupon, with the aid of said posse, completely destroyed the 
said Free State Hotel, contents, and outbuildings, the said posse and leader claiming 
to act under authority of the aforesaid presentment by the grand jury; that the said 
New England Emigrant Aid Company presented a claim against the United States 
for the loss thus sustained to the Thirty-seventh Congress of the United States, third 
session, as. appears in Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 29 thereof; that on the 
17th day of February, 1897, the said company transferred and assigned to the Uni- 
versity of Kansas the said claim, and that thereafter the regents of the University of 
Kansas, in the name of "University of Kansas," presented the said claim in the sum 
of $20,000 to the Congress of the United States. 

The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. 

John C. Nicholson, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
protection and defense of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 43 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, the regents of the University of Kansas, is a corporation created 
under the laws of the State of Kansas, and was such corporation on the 17th day of 
February, 1897, and is a State institution for the higher education of young men and 
women of the State of Kansas who are sufficiently prepared for university work. It 
has no commercial features and is supported in the main by appropriation made by 
the legislature of Kansas. It has also a small income from an endowment fund , receives 
the proceeds of sale of certain public lands, and has some income from small fees paid 
by the students of the University. 

II. On the 21st day of May, 1856, the New England Emigrant Aid Company was a 
corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of an act of the legislature of the 
State of Massachusetts and was the owner in fee simple of lots 21 and 23 on Massa- 
chusetts street, city of Lawrence, Territory of Kansas, on which it had theretofore 
erected and then owned a certain hotel structure with necessary outbuildings, known 
as the "Free State Hotel," or "Eldridge House," which building, exclusive of its 
furniture and exclusive of the land upon which it stood was reasonably worth the sum 
of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). 

III. On the 5th day of May, 1856, Judge Le Compte convened the United States 
district court at the town of Lecompton, State of Kansas, and delivered a charge to the 
grand jury of that court, a portion of which was as follows: 

'This Territory was organized by an act of Congress, and so far its authority is from 
the United States. It has a legislature elected in pursuance of that organic act. This 
legislature, being an instrument of Congress, by which it governs the capital territory, 
has passed laws. These laws, therefore, are of the United States authority and mak- 
ing, and all that resist these laws resist the power and authority of the United States, 
and are, therefore, guilty of high treason. Now, gentlemen, if you find that any per- 
sons have resisted these laws, then you must, under your oaths, find bills against such 
persons for high treason." 

After having been charged by the judge as aforesaid, the grand jury made the fol- 
lowing presentment on the said 5th day of May, 1856: 

"The grand jury, sitting for the adjourned term of- the first district court in and for 
the county of Douglas, in the Territory of Kansas, beg leave to report to the honorable 
court that from evidence laid before them, showing that the newspaper known as the 
Herald of Freedom, published at the town of Lawrence, has from time to time issued 
publications of the most inflammatory and seditious character, denying the legality 
of the Territorial authorities, addressing and commending forcible resistance to the 
8ame, demoralizing the popular mind, and rendering life and prorpety unsafe, even 
to the extent of advising assassination as a last resort. 

"Also, that the paper known as the Kansas Free State has been similarly engaged, 
and has recently reported resolutions of a public meeting in Johnson County, in this 
Territory, in which resistance to the Territorial laws, even unto blood, has been agreed 
upon; and that we respectfully recommend their abatement as a nuisance. 

"Also, that we are satisfied that the building known as the Free State Hotel, in Law- 
rence, has been constructed with a view to military occupation and defense, regularly 
parapeted and portholed for the use of cannon and small arms, and could only have 
been designed as a stronghold of resistance to law, thereby endangering a public safety 
and encouraging rebellion and sedition in this country, and respectfully recommend 
that steps be taken whereby this nuisance may be removed. 

"Omer C. Stewart, Foreman." 

A search of the records of the said district court, as they have been preserved, was 
made by one of the witnesses during the year 1906, but said search failed to disclose 
that any warrant or process of any kind was issued against the said Free State Hotel by 
reason of said presentment or indictment so found by the grand jury. 

IV. On the 11th day of May, 1856, United States Marshal J. B. Donelson issued the 
following proclamation : 

PROCLAMATION. 

To the people of Kansas Territory: 

Whereas certain judicial writs of arrest have been directed to me by first district 
court of United States, etc., to be executed within the county of Douglas; and 

Whereas an attempt to execute them by the United States deputy marshal was 
violently resisted by a large number of citizens of Lawrence ; and as there is every 



44 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

reason to believe that any attempt to execute these writs will be resisted by a large 
body of armed men : 

Now, therefore, the law-abiding citizens of the Territory are commanded to be and 
appear at Lecompton as soon as practicable, and in numbers sufficient for the proper 
execution of the law. 
Given under my hand this 11th day of May, 1856. 

J. B. Donelson, 
United States Marshal for Kansas Territory. 

On said 11th day of May, 1856, a committee of the citizens of the town of Lawrence, 
Kans., presented the following letter to the governor of the Territory of Kansas: 

Lawrence City, May 11, 1856. 
Dear Sir: The undersigned are charged with the duty of communicating to your 
excellency the following preamble and resolutions adopted at a public meeting of the 
citizens of this place at 7 o'clock last evening, viz: 

Whereas we have the most reliable information from various parts of the Territory 
and the adjoining State of Missouri of the organization of guerrilla bands, who threat- 
ened the destruction of our town and its citizens: Therefore 

Resolved, That Messrs. Topliff, Hutchinson, and Roberts constitute a committee to 
inform his excellency Governor Shannon of these facts and to call upon him in the 
name of the people of Lawrence for protection against such bands by the United States 
troops at his disposal. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Very truly, etc., C. W. Topliff. 

W. Y. Roberts. 
John Hutchins. 

Governor Shannon replied to said letter on May 12, 1856, as follows: 

Executive Office, 
Lecompton, Kans. T., May l'z, 1856. 
Gentlemen: Your note of the 11th instant is received, and in reply I have to state 
that there is no force around or approaching Lawrence except the legally constituted 
posse of the United States marshal and sheriff of Douglas County, each of whom I am 
informed have a number of writs in their hands for execution against persons now in 
Lawrence. I shall in no way interfere with either of these officers in the discharge of 
their official duties. 

If the citizens of Lawrence submit themselves to the Territorial laws and aid and 
assist the marshal and sheriff in the execution of process in their hands, as all good 
citizens are bound to do when called on "they or all such will entitle themselves to the 
protection of the laws. But as long as they keep up a military or armed organization 
to resist the Territorial laws and the officers charged with their execution I shall not 
interpose to save them from the legitimate consequence of their illegal acts. 
I have the honor to be, yours, with great respect, 

Wilson Shannon. 

On May 14, 1856, the following letter was presented by the said committee to said 
United States marshal: 

Lawrence, May 14, 1856. 

Dear Sir: We have seen a proclamation issued by yourself, dated 11th day of May, 
and also have reliable information this morning that large bodies of armed men, in 
pursuance of your proclamation, have assembled in the vicinity of Lawrence. 

That there may be no misunderstanding, we beg leave to ask, respectfully, that we 
may be reliably informed what are the demands against us. Wc desire to state most 
truthfully and earnestly that no opposition whatever will now or at any future time be 
offered to the execution of any legal process by yourself or any person acting for you. 
We also pledge ourselves to assist you, if called upon, in the execution of any legal 
process. 

We declare ourselves to be order-loving and law-abiding citizens, and only await an 
opportunity to testify our fidelity to the laws of the country, the Constitution, and 
the Union. 

We are informed, also, that those men collecting about Lawrence openly declare 
that their intention is to destroy the town and drive off the citizens. Of course, we do 
not believe that you give any countenance to such threats; but in view of the exciting 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 45 

state of the public mind we ask protection of the constituted authorities of the govern- 
ment, declaring ourselves in readiness to cooperate with them for the maintenance of 
the peace, order, and quiet of the community in which we live. 
Very respectfully, 

Robert Morrow. 
Lyman Allen. 
John Hutchinson. 
J. B. Donelson, 

United States Marshal for Kansas Territory. 

To said letter last above, dated May 14, 1856, said United States marshal replied by 
letter, in which, after making certain charges against the citizens of Lawrence, he 
used the following language: 

" But I must take the liberty of executing all processes in my hands as the United 
States marshal, in my own time and manner, and shall only use such power as is 
authorized by law." 

On the 17th day of May, 1856, the following letter was sent by a committee of the 
citizens of Lawrence to the United States marshal: 

J. B. Donelson, 

United States Marshal, Kansas Territory. 
Dear Sir: We desire to call your attention, as citizens of Kansas, that a large force 
of armed men have collected in the vicinity of Lawrence and are engaged in commit- 
ting depredations upon our citizens, stopping wagons, arresting, threatening, and rob- 
bing unoffending travelers upon the highway, breaking open boxes of merchandise 
and appropriating their contents; have slaughtered cattle and terrified many of the 
women and children. 

We have also learned from Governor Shannon that there are no armed forces in the 
vicinity of this place but the regularly constituted militia of the Territory. This is to 
ask you if you recognize them as your posse and feel responsible for their acts. If you 
do not, we hope and trust you will prevent a repetition of such acts and give peace to 
the settlers. 

On behalf of the citizens. 

C. W. Babcock. 
Lyman Allen. 
J. A. Perry. 
To this letter there was no reply by the marshal. 

On said 17th day of May, 1856, a letter as follows was presented to Governor Shannon 
by the proprietors of the aforesaid Free State Hotel: 

Lawrence, Kans. T., May 17, 1856. 
Gentlemen: Having learned that your reason for assembling so large a force in the 
vicinity of our town to act as posse in the enforcement of the laws rests on the suppo- 
sition that we are armed against the laws and the officers in the exercise of their duties, 
we would say that we hold our arms only for our own individual defense against vio- 
lence, and not against the laws or the officers in the execution of the same. Therefore, 
having no further use for them than our protection is otherwise secured, we propose to 
deliver our arms to Colonel Sumner so soon as he shall quarter in our town a body of 
troops sufficient for our protection, to be retained by him so long as such force shall 
remain among us. 

Very truly, etc., 

Many Citizens. 
His Excellency Wilson Shannon, Governor, and -- 

J. B. Donelson, Esq., United States Marshal for Kansas Territory. 

V. That on the 21st day of May, 1856, said United States marshal, J. B. Donelson, 
having in his hands a writ for the arrest of certain persons then residing in said city 
of Lawrence, organized a posse of several hundred armed men under the pretense of 
needing the same for making said arrests, and proceeded to said city of Lawrence and 
camped with said posse near said city; and on the forenoon of said day, leaving said 
posse in camp, proceeded into said city and made arrests under said writ. That on 
the afternoon of said day, while the marshal was present, a man went through said 
posse and dismissed it with the statement that the marshal had no further use for its 
services, thanking the men and telling them to make out the number of days they had 
served, and that they would be paid. This same man immediately summoned the 
same men as the posse of Sheriff Jones, the sheriff of Douglas County. That on the 



46 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

afternoon of said day said posse, under the command of the said sheriff, proceeded in 
a body into said city and destroyed the Free State Hotel by fire, said marshal appearing 
to give countenance to the same by his presence at the time, and said sheriff announc- 
ing immediately prior to the burning of the hotel, while the United States marshal was 
present, that he was a deputy United States marshal, and that he was acting under an 
order of the United States court for Douglas County, and had a writ from that court; 
but further than this statement by the sheriff, and the fact of the marshal's presence 
and giving countenance to the acts of the sheriff and posse, it does not appear that the 
said sheriff had any official connection with the United States. 

VI. On the 22d day of May, 1856, the said posse was again enrolled as the posse of 
the said United States marshal. 

Also, on the said 22d day of May, 1856, a committee of said town of Lawrence, Terri- 
tory of Kansas, set forth all of the foregoing facts concerning the conduct of said gov- 
ernor, marshal, deputy marshal, and posse in a memorial addressed to His Excellency 
Franklin Pierce, President of the United States, which was on said last-mentioned 
day forwarded to said President. 

VII. During the said period of time from May 5, 1856, to and including May 21, 1856, 
there was no armed force in said town of Lawrence making resistance to the laws of the 
United States, and there was no concerted action among the citizens of the said town 
of Lawrence, nor any action by the owners of the said hotel building in opposition to 
the said laws of the United States. 

VIII. The said New England Emigrant Aid Company presented to the Thirty- 
seventh Congress of the United States, third session, a claim against the United States 
for the value of said hotel building in the sum of $25,000. 

Said company frequently memorialized subsequent Congresses of the United States 
in different efforts to secure payment of this claim. 

IX. On the 17th day of February, 1897, by its deed, the said New England Emigrant 
Aid Company assigned and transferred the said claim to the present claimant, the 
regents of the University of Kansas. 

X. This claim was presented to the Fifty-fifth Congress in the sum of $20,000, where 
it was Senate bill 2677, upon which bill a favorable report was made by the Senate 
Committee on Claims, being report No. 763, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, and 
the said bill was passed by the Senate of the United States. 

A similar bill, S. 76, was presented to the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, which 
bill was also reported upon favorably by the Committee on Claims in report No. 179 of 
said Congress and session. 

The claim was again presented to the Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, where it 
was Senate bill 687, which last-named bill was on the 12th day of March, 1903, referred 
to this court for a hearing and determination of facts under and in accordance with the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day ol January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

KENTUCKY. 

BAPTIST CHURCH, CRAB ORCHARD, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11637. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, 
Kentucky, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 1610, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky, the sum of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 47 

one thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property 
by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Ky., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court April 12, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
fall of 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took pos- 
session of the church building of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Ky., and used 
and occupied the same for military purposes until late in the year 1864. 

That by reason of such use and occupation the building was greatly damaged, and 
the reasonable rental value thereof during the period of said occupancy, including 
the repairs necessary to restore the building to the same condition in which it was 
at the time the said military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of 
$1,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a bearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of January, 
1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of 
the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Ken- 
tucky, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war 
of the rebellion. j 

II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of 
the United. States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, used and occupied 
the church building of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky, from on or 
about November, 1861, until the fall of 1864. The reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was so used and occupied, including the repairs necessary 
to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said military forces 
first took possession of the same, was the sum of ten hundred and fifty dollars ($1,050.00), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Coujit. 
Filed January 15, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF RUSSELLVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12413. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville , 

Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On May 1, 1906, this claim was transmitted to this couit by the Committee on War 
Claims of the House of Representatives for findings of fact under the terms of the act 
approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. The case pre- 
sented by said reference was docketed as case No. 12343, Congressional. 

On January 22, 1906, Senate bill No. 3440, Fifty-ninth Congress, was introduced 
for the relief of claimant church, said bill reading as follows: 

' 'A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, 

Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Kentucky, 
the sum of two thousand six hundred and forty dollars, for use and destruction of their 
church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

Said bill, with accompanying papers, was referred to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate on June 13, 1906, for findings of fact under the terms of the act 
approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case pre- 
sented by said second reference was docketed as case No. 12413, Congressional. 



48 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The cases presented by said two references have been consolidated upon claimant's 
motion under the later number. 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 10th day of Janu- 
ary, 1907. 

Francis L. Neubeck, esq., appeared for the claimant (Moyers & Consaul of counsel), 
and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegitions: 

That they are citizens of the United States and reside nts of the county of Logan, 
State of Kentucky; that they are the duly elected, qualified, and acting trustees of 
the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky. 

That during the late civil war said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, 
Ky., was the owner of certain land at Russellville, Ky., on which was situated a cer- 
tain substantial brick church building used by said organization as a house of worship ; 
that during said war the United States military forces took possession of said building 
and premises and used and occupied the same for hospital and other military pur- 
poses, under proper authority, for a period of four years, during which period said 
building was greatly damaged ; that in view of said facts petitioners present their said 
claim to the United States Government as follows, to wit: 

To use and occupation of house of worship from October, 1862, until November, 

1866, with damages incident to such use and occupation $4, 050 

That a portion of this claim, for damages only, was presented in 1877 to the Quarter- 
master-General, but was rejected by that officer for lack of* jurisdiction. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, 
Ky., remained, as an organization, loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During and immediately after the close of said civil war the Cumberland Pres- 
byterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., was the owner of certain land at Russellville, 
Ky., on which stood the brick house of worship of said church. The record title of the 
ownership of the said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., was 
defective in this, to wit, that the conveyance of the grantors, if any was ever made, 
was not registered in the proper office for the record of deeds in the county where said 
property was situate. But some time subsequent to the close of the said war the said 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., by its trustees, made a con- 
veyance of said property to one Hugh Barclay, and the trustees of the Baptist Church, 
in Russellville, Ky., joined in said conveyance as the original grantors to the trustees 
of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church aforesaid. 

During said war the military forces of the United States took possession of the church 
building described in the petition and used and occupied the same for about three 
years for hospital and barracks purposes, and damaged the same in excess of the ordi- 
nary wear and tear. The reasonable rental and damage was then and there sixteen 
hundred and fifty dollars ($1,650), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. In 1877 claimant church presented a claim to the Quartermaster-General for 
damages to said building, which claim was rejected by the Quartermaster-General 
for lack of jurisdiction, since which time said claim has not been presented to any 
officer or Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and refer- 
ence to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 49 

DEACONS OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BOWLING GREEN, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12942. Deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Bowling 
Green, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OE CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the mili. 
tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellions 
On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill 
in the following words: 

" [S. 6620, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Kentucky. 

11 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Kentucky, the 
sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, 
use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the 
civil war." 

The said deacons of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that — 

The First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Ky., was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the 
United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that about Sep- 
tember, 1862, United States military forces took complete possession of said church 
for hospital purposes and continued to use it for such hospital purposes for a long 
period of time, to wit, until 1864, which completely prevented the holding of reli- 
gious services in said church during the period that it was so used for hospital pur- 
poses; that at the time this church property was taken by United States forces as 
aforesaid it consisted of a large, well-constructed brick church building about 50 by 
40 feet in size, with basement, main floor, and gallery, and that by reason of the 
occupation by the United States forces as aforesaid the said property was greatly 
damaged and injured; that a claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General's 
office during the war, and as a result of said claim some repairs were made by the 
United States quartermaster, but such repairs only replaced a portion of the injury 
done the property by the United States troops, and no allowance was made for the 
use and occupation or rental of said property; that the damages to the property not 
made good by the United States quartermaster's repairs, together with reasonable 
rental for the property during the time of occupation as aforesaid, amounts to $1,200. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of November, 
1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

• The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP EACT. 

I. The First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Ky., as an organization, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the army, took possession of the church property described in the peti- 
tion and occupied and used the same as a hospital, and damaged the same. The 
reasonable rental value, together with the damage done to said church property in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one thousand one 
hundred and twenty-five dollars ($1,125), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any tribunal of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 
3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute 
of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having 
resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
December 2, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk -Court of Claims. 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 4 



50 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

DIRECTORS OF PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF 

KENTUCKY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13018. The directors of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary 
of Kentucky v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in 
the following words: 

"[S 7126, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the directors of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the directors of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky, 
the sum of five thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and 
incidental injury of the buildings and grounds of the Presbyterian Theological Semi- 
nary of Kentucky, at Danville, Kentucky, by United States military forces during 
the civil war." 

The said directors of said seminary appeared in this court March 23,1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: 

The Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky was loyal to the Government 
of the United States and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United 
States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that from the date of the 
battle of Perryville, Ky., on or about October 8, 1862, until 1864, the property of the 
said seminary was occupied by United States military forces and used as a hospital, 
said property consisting of a very large, well-constructed brick building, about 100 by 
50 feet in dimensions, containing two chapels, and about fifteen other rooms, with very 
extensive grounds; that such occupation by the United States military forces greatly 
injured the said property and prevented its use for seminary purposes during the 
period of such occupation by military forces, the injuries to said property, together 
with reasonable rental for the time of such occupation, damaged the said seminary in 
the sum of $5,000, for which no payment has been made. • 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Novem- 
ber, 1907. 

Coldren and Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of 
Kentucky, as a seminary, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
the late civil war. 

II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the buildings and grounds of the Presbyterian Theo- 
logical Seminary of Kentucky and occupied and used the same for military purposes. 
The reasonable value of the use and occupancy of said property as aforesaid was the 
sum of one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars ($1,150), for which no payment 
has been made. 

The evidence does not establish to the satisfaction of the court that any damages 
resulted from the use and occupancy of said buildings as stated above, and no allow- 
ance is made therefor. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the 
statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 51 

SURVIVING EXECUTORS OF ESTATE OF JOHN G. HOLLOWAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11468. E. S. Holloway and W. S. Holloway, surviving executors 
of the estate of John G. Holloway, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to'the court in April, 1904, by resolution of tbe 
United States Senate, under act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of John G. Holloway, deceased, and others. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to adjust and settle the claims of the estate of John G. Holloway, 
deceased, formerly of Henderson County, Kentucky, and of the tenants holding 
under him and otherwise involved in leases executed to the State of Ohio and grow- 
ing out of the use and occupation of property adjacent to Columbus, Ohio, which 
was used and occupied by the United States as Camp Chase, and a sufficient sum to 
pay any amount found due to the parties entitled thereto is hereby appropriated out 
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 

The claimants appeared in court and filed their petition on the 22d day of Novem- 
ber, 1904, in which they make, in substance, the following allegations: 

1. That they are the surviving executors of the estate of John G. Holloway, 
deceased, late a citizen of the county of Henderson, State of Kentucky, who departed 
this life on the 17th day of January, 1870. 

2. That prior to the commencement of the late war for the suppression of the rebel- 
lion said decedent owned a tract of land situated in the county of Franklin, Ohio, 
near the city of Columbus; which said tract of land was, by duly executed indenture, 
leased by the State of Ohio for one year, to wit, from March 1, 1861, to March 1, 1862, 
and there was established and maintained thereon a military camp known as Camp 
Chase; that said lease provided, among other things, for payment to the said decedent 
of the sum of $4 per acre for rental thereof until said 1st day of March, 1862, and in 
addition thereto for the payment to him of any and all damages which might accrue 
to said property, as the same might be assessed by certain referees therein named, 
and, further, that if said premises were retained by said State after the 1st day of 
March, 1862, a reasonable rent should be paid therefor. 

3. Petitioners further represent that under and by virtue of the terms of said lease 
said decedent was paid all rents and damages and fully settled with by the State of 
Ohio from the period from March 1, 1861, to March 1, 1862. 

4. Petitioners further represent that on March 1, 1862, the Federal authorities 
assumed control of the authorities described in said lease, and other and adjoining 
property belonging to the deceased, and from that time on until sometime in the 
year 1866 exercised absolute and complete "control thereof; that no lease was exe- 
cuted between the United States and the said decedent, but the United States assumed 
and acted under the lease hereinbefore referred to, between the State of Ohio and the 
said decedent, and full settlement was made thereunder with the said decedent, 
except as hereinafter set forth. 

5. Petitioners further represent that in various settlements under said lease, as 
made by and between the United States and said decedent, full settlement was made 
for all items of claim and demand accruing out of said lease between the State of 
Ohio and the said decedent, and the assumption thereof by the United States, for 
and on account of items of rent. 

6. Petitioners further represent that their claim as executors of the estate of the 
said decedent for rent and for stores and supplies taken for the use of the Army of 
the United States, during the period covered by the tenancy of the United States 
under said lease, was heretofore referred to this court under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1883, commonly called the Bowman Act, and was 
known and designated as William J. Marshall, et al., executors, v. The United States, 
No. 355, Congressional, and that, after hearing, a finding of fact was made, of date 
April 21, 1890, and the sum of $2,520 found to be due said claimants on account of 
standing timber cut and used for fuel, etc., for which an appropriation has been 
made and the said amount paid; that the said findings of fact also show that "The 
claimant has been paid the full rental value of the land so occupied;" and further 
that the sixth of said findings is as follows: All of the other claims in the case (except 
that for rent which has been paid) are for damage or destruction to the property of 
the intestate by the Army during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, of 
which this court has no jurisdiction." 

7. Petitioners further represent that among the items so summarily disposed of by 
the court for want of jurisdiction was the value of 54,144 rails used by the Army of 



52 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the United States as fuel, and the sum of $802.75 awarded to the decedent for the 
destruction of his growing crops by the referees appointed for that purpose under the 
terms of said lease, which said award was under instructions from the Secretary of 
War, and was duly approved by Captain Burr, A. Q. M., and the governor of the 
State of Ohio. 

Claimants' decedent has heretofore been found loyal by the court under the ref- 
erence of the case under the Bowman Act. 

This case was brought to a hearing on the 17th day of May, 1906. Pennebaker 
and Jones appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, 
his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the 
interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
the counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

I. The claimants herein are the surviving executors of the last will and testament 
of John G. Holloway, deceased, late a citizen of tfae county of Henderson, State of 
Kentucky, who departed this life on the 17th day of January, 1870. 

II. The decedent in his lifetime and in the year 1861 entered into a lease with 
the governor of the State of Ohio, by the terms of which it was provided that 
therein-described premises belonging to the said decedent should be used by the 
State of Ohio as a military camp of rendezvous; that the said State of Ohio should 
be responsible to the said decedent for any and all damages resulting to the said 
property from its occupation by the State as aforesaid, and that the amount of such 
damage should be assessed by a board of referees therein named; that if the State 
should continue in the occupation thereof for a period beyond the term provided in 
said lease, to wit, for one year, a reasonable rental should be paid. 

III. On March 1, 1862, the United States Government took possession of the prem- 
ises so leased to the State of Ohio, under the terms and conditions of said lease, and 
occupied and used the same as a military camp of rendezvous until after the close of the 
war, to wit, in the year 1866, and for all of said period paid the decedent a reasonable 
and proper rental therefor. 

IV. Subsequently, to wit, on the 29th day of December, 1863, the said board of 
referees, as provided for by the terms of said lease, assessed the damages which had 
accrued to the property so leased during the year 1862 at $802.75 (eight hundred and 
two dollars and seventy-five cents), which said award was, under the instructions 
of the Secretary of War, referred to Raymond Burr, A. Q. M., and to the governor of 
the State of Ohio, and was by them duly approved. 

V. The said tract of land so leased and occupied by the United States Government 
amounted in the aggregate to 462£ acres, all of which was surrounded by a good sub- 
stantial rail fence with certain cross fences dividing the same into fields. All the 
fencing thereon was taken and used as firewood by the United States troops, the 
fair and reasonable value of which was at the time and place the sum of $1,299.25, 
making with the damages so assessed the sum of two thousand one hundred and two 
dollars ($2,102), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN H. MARSHALL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11532-1. John H. Marshall v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 6th day of May, 1904, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 1465, 58th Cong., 2d sess.] 

" A BILL For the relief of the drafted men of Pendleton and other countieB, in the State of Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed, through the proper accounting officers, to investigate and ad- 
just the claims of the drafted men of Pendleton and other counties, in the State v of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 53 

Kentucky, for refundment of commutation money alleged to have been illegally 
exacted from them in order to escape military service as drafted men during the civil 
war, and to ascertain and determine what amount, if any, is justly due from the United 
States on said account; and for the payment of the amounts so found due a sufficient 
sum is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court August 25, 1904, in which 
he makes the following allegations: 

"2. Petitioner further represents that said Senate bill 1465 was, on April 26, 1904, 
referred to this honorable court under the provisions of section 13 of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887, commonly called the 'Tucker Act,' and that he, petitioner, 
files this suit in his own behalf, and also in behalf of all those other parties, to him by 
name unknown, who are designated and described in said Senate bill 1465 as 'The 
drafted men of Pendleton and other counties in the State of Kentucky, ' and that all 
material allegations of fact in the following petition are true as to himself and as to all 
the unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465. 

•''3. Petitioner further represents that on the 6th day of June and on the 11th day of 
July, 1864, certain drafts were made by the military authorities of the United States 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 731), 
and the act amendatory thereof approved February 24, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 6), and en- 
forced in Pendleton and other counties in the State of Kentucky, but that on those 
dates, to wit, June 6 and July 11, 1864, the quota of said Pendleton County and all 
other counties in said State was full and complete, and he, the said petitioner, and the 
other unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465, were not, therefore, legally sub- 
ject to draft. 

"4. Petitioner further represents that he and the other unnamed beneficiaries under 
the said Senate bill 1465 paid to the proper authorities of the. United States, each and 
every of them, the sum of $300, in order to secure exemption from military service 
under said draft, as provided by the said acts of Congress thereunto relating and general 
orders of the War Department; and that under the provisions of the acts of Congress 
approved February 28, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 417), and March 1, 1869 (15 Stat. L., 282), he 
and each of the said unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465 were entitled to the 
refundment of the said sum of $300, so paid by each and every of them to secure 
exemption as aforesaid. 

"5. Petitioner further represents that he and many of the said unnamed beneficiaries 
of said Senate bill 1465 made application to the Secretary of War for the refundment 
of said sums paid as aforesaid, in accordance with the provisions of the said last- 
mentioned acts of Congress, but the said claims were rejected and disallowed by the 
Secretary of War upon grounds which said Secretary of War has since held to be 
wholly insufficient. 

"6. Petitioner further represents that his claim and the claims of others of the said 
unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465 were heretofore referred to this honor- 
able court under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, com- 
monly called the 'Bowman Act,' and that said case or cases were known and designated 
in this court as John H. Marshall v. The United States, Congressional, No. 106, and 
that the same was brought to hearing in this honorable court and dismissed for want of 
jurisdiction, April 26, 1886 (21 C. Cls. R., 307). 

"7. Petitioner further represents that he and the unnamed beneficiaries of said 
Senate bill 1465 never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion against the United States; 
that he and they are the sole owners of their respective claims, and that he and they 
have exercised due diligence in the prosecution of the same." 

The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 22d day of November, 1904. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States, and resides in the county of Har 
rison, in the State of Kentucky. 

II. On June 6, 1864, claimant, then being a citizen of and residing in the county of 
Pendleton and State of Kentucky, was drafted into the military service of the United 
States, and, in order to secure exemption therefrom, paid, on June 26, 1864, to the 
Government of the United States, the sum of $300, all under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved February 24, 1864. (13 Stat. L., 6.) 

III. Pendleton County, Ky., from which claimant was drafted, had, at the time 
of said draft, already filled and exceeded its quota. The reason-why the claimant 



54 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

was drafted was that at the time of his draft a system of readjustment of the credits of 
the State of Kentucky had been ordered by the Provost-Marshal-General in April, 
1864, and had not been carried out in the State at the time of the draft of the claimant. 
Had this order been fully complied with the draft would not have been made. 

IV. The claimant presented his claim under the acts of February 28, 1867 (14 
Stat. L., 417), and March 1, 1869 (15 Stat. L., 282), to the Secretary of War for refund 
of said amount so paid to secure his exemption from military service, by reason of 
the illegality of said draft as applied to the county of Pendleton, in the State of Ken- 
tucky, but the same was disallowed by the Adjutant-General June 1, 1869, upon the 
ground that the redistribution of credits in Pendleton and other counties had not been 
completed until after the draft had been carried into effect. 

V. Thereafter, upon a motion for a rehearing, the Adjutant-General of the Army, in a 
report dated July 11, 1879, advised the Secretary of War that said draft was illegally 
made, and the Secretary of War, acting thereon, made the following decision: 

War Department, 
Washington City, July 30, 1879. 
Sir: Referring to your letter appealing from the decision of the Adjutant-General of 
June 1, 1869, in the matter of the claim of John H. Marshall for return of $300 commuta- 
tion money paid by him to Henry A. Mitchell, acting provost marshal, sixth district of 
Kentucky, June 26, 1864, in lieu of service as a drafted soldier, I have the honor to 
inform you that it appears that this claim was rejected by one of my predecessors some 
ten years ago, and as the present application is but, an appeal from that determination 
on the theory that it was error in law, and as no new evidence is added in the case, and 
no new legislation has intervened by which the rights of the claimant are advanced or 
modified, it is believed that the general rule that a head of a Department can not prop- 
erly review the decision of a predecessor upon a claim in the absence of new facts or law 
upon the subject may properly be applied in this case, therefore the claim will be 
referred to Congress with favorable recommendation. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Geo. W. McCrary. 

Justus I. McCarty, Esq., 

Attorney, City. 

VI. Pursuant to his decision, as set out in finding V, the Secretary of War trans- 
mitted the following letter to Congress : 

War Department, December 2, 1879. 
The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representatives 
papers relating to the claim of John H. Marshall, of Pendleton County, Ky., to be 
repaid the amount of $300 paid by him to the United States in June, 1864, by way of 
commutation money as a drafted man. 

The claim is recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress. 

Geo. W. McCrary, Secretary of War. 
The Speaker of the House oe Representatives. 

The only action taken by Congress on this recommendation has been to refer the 
claim to this court. 

VII. The said sum of $300 paid by the claimant herein as commutation or exemp- 
tion money to release him from military service under the draft made in the county 
of Pendleton, in the State of Kentucky, on the 6th day of June, 1864, has never, nor 
has any portion thereof, been refunded to the claimant, and the same still remains 
unpaid. 

VIII. The claim was afterwards referred by the Committee on War Claims of the 
House of Representatives to the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1883, commonly known as the Bowman Act, and the petition in the case 
was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the provision in the act of 
February 28, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 417), that the Secretary of War shall refund commuta- 
tion money "whenever it shall appear that under the rules and decisions of the War 
Department governing at the time the said person was entitled to discharge from the 
obligation to render personal service under the draft," vested exclusive jurisdiction 
in the Secretary of War. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 12, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 55 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, BOWLING GREEN, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13027. Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, 

Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 7205, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the stewards of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, 

Kentucky. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the stewards of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, 
Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the 
occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces 
during the civil war. ' ' 

The stewards of the said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their 
petition in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- 
sion of the property of the claimant and used and occupied the same for various mili- 
tary purposes for a long period of time, resulting in much injury to said property, and 
that the reasonable rental value of said property during the time it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore it to as good condition as before said occupa- 
tion, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made; that said property 
consisted of a well-constructed brick church building, about 62 by 41 feet in size, and 
was occupied as a hospital by the United States military forces when General Buell 
passed through Bowling Green in September, 1862, and for a long period of time there- 
after; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Government of 
the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given en- 
couragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 
1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George 
E. Boren, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, Ky., as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building described in the pe- 
tition and used the same for hospital purposes and also damaged the same. The 
reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
at the time and place the sum of seven hundred and thirty dollars ($730), no part of 
which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not hav- 
ing resorted to some established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, <-J 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



56 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, DANVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13029. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Danville, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in 
the following words: 

' ' [S. 7207, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session,] 
"A BILL Eor the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Kentucky. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Kentucky, the 
sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and inci- 
dental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: 

The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Ky., was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the 
United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that said church 
was taken possession of by United States military forces and occupied as a hospital 
from the date of the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, and used for such 
hospital purposes until the spring of 1863 ; that such occupation for hospital purposes 
completely prevented the holding in any manner of religious services in said church; 
that during the time of such occupation for hospital purposes the pews were removed 
and the property otherwise greatly injured by such occupation; that at the time of such 
occupation for hospital purposes said property consisted of a well-constructed brick 
church building about 60 by 40 feet in size, with gallery, and that by reason of the 
repairs necessary to the said building, and including reasonable rental value of said 
property during the time of such occupation, the church was damaged to the amount 
of $1,000. •: 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- 
ber, 1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Danville, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the late civil war. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States by proper authority 
took possession of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Danville, Ky., and occupied and used the same for military purposes, and damaged 
the same. . The use and occupation of the building and grounds as aforesaid, together 
with the damage incident thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and twenty dollars ($520), no part 
of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution 
of .the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the 
statute of limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of. Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 57 

MARGARET P. ROBINSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11455. Margaret P. Robinson, widow of Richard M. Robinson 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate 
on the 26th day of April, 1904, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker 
Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the legal representatives of Richard M. Robinson, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to investigate, audit, adjust, and settle the claim of the legal repre- 
sentatives of Richard M. Robinson, deceased, of Camp Dick Robinson, "Kentucky, 
for stores and supplies or other property taken by and furnished to the armies of the 
United States during the civil war; and a sufficient sum to pay the amount thus found 
due is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated." 

The claimant appeared in this court and filed her petition on the 23d day of Feb- 
ruary, 1906, in which she makes, in substance, the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Boyle County, in the State of 
Kentucky, and is the widow and legal representative of Richard M. Robinson, 
deceased, late of Garrard County, in said State; that she has a claim against the 
United States growing out of stores and supplies furnished by her said deceased hus- 
band to the United States military authorities during the civil war, and stated as 
follows: 

1. For boarding and lodging 23 recruits for the Eighth East Tennessee 

Volunteers from December 29 to 30, 1862, as for vouchers of Col. Felix 

A. Reeve $12. 65 

2. For pasturage for 50 beef cattle for three days, as for voucher of John 

Bower 37 . 50 

3. For 980 bushels salt, furnished to Capt. Stephen Hoyt, A. C. S., at Tus- 

cumbia, Ala., in August, 1862, at $1 980. 00 

Total 1, 030. 15 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 7th day of May, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence^and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the claimant's decedent, 
Richard M. Robinson, furnished to the Army of the United States, in the county of 
Garrard, State of Kentucky, stores and supplies of the kind and character described 
in the petition, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hun- 
dred and twenty-seven dollars ($227), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 14,. 1906. 

°A true copy. 
. Test this 15th day of November, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



58 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF BAPTIST CHURCH OF HARRODSBURG, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13000. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, 
. Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military- 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to this court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 7033, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Baptist church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, the sum of 
three thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental 
injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war. " 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred— 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the property of the Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., consisting of a 
large, well-constructed brick church, and occupied the same directly after the battle 
of Perry ville, Ky., October 9, 1862, and for a long period thereafter; that it was used 
for housing commissary stores, including meats, the grease from which so penetrated 
the walls as to cause great permanent injury to the building; that the pulpit was 
destroyed and the property otherwise very much damaged by said occupation; that 
the reasonable rental value of said property during the said occupation, including the 
repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before said occu- 
pation, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made; that the claimants 
have at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and 
have not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion 
against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d of February, 1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT, 

I. The Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., as an organization was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of said church building described in the petition and used and occu- 
pied the same as a commissary and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value 
of such use and occupation, together with the damage to same in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars 
($675), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the 
bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse 
the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 59 

TRUSTEES CHRISTIAN CHURCH, DANVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11718. Trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, 

Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 4870, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL for the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of nine hun- 
dred dollars, for use and occupation of and damages to church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Ky., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court October 18, 1904, in which they made the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 1st 
of October, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of the church building of the Christian Church at Danville, Ky., and used 
and occupied the same for hospital purposes until about the 1st of May, 1863. 

That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental 
value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs nec- 
essary to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when said troops 
first took possession of the same, was the sum of $900, for which no payment has been 
made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of April, 1905. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Christian Church of Danville, Ky., as a 
church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the 
Christian Church at Danville, Ky., and used and occupied the same for hospital 
purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the time it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was when said occupation commenced, was the sum of seven hundred and twenty- 
five dollars ($725). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of June, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



60 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, DANVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13020. Trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Danville, Ky., v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 7131, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Danville, Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropria- 
ted, to the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of 
one thousand nine hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and 
incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil 
war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late civil war 
the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the 
First Baptist Church of Danville, Ky., consisting of a large brick church building, 
about 60 by 50 feet in size, and occupied it as a hospital from about October 10, 1862, 
for a long period; that the pews were broken up and consumed, and the property in 
other respects greatly injured by said occupation. That the reasonable rental value 
of said property during said occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore 
said property to the same condition in which it was before such occupation, was the 
sum of $1,900, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all 
times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in 
any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion against 
the said Government. 

• The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 
1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants and the Attorney-General, by 
William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I. The First Baptist Church of Danville, Ky., as an organization, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- 
pied the same as a hospital, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of 
such use and occupation, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was then and there the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700) , no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of 
any statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse 
the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 61 

TRUSTEES OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, HARRODSBURG, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12453. Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrods- 
burg, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as tho 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, the sum 
of six thousand dollars for use and occupation of and damage to their church property 
by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court September 27, 190G, 
in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about October 
9, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Buell 
took possession of the church building of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, 
Ky., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until about the last of 
April, 1863. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so oc- 
cupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the said building, furniture, and 
fixtures to the condition in which they were at the time the said military forces took 
possession of the same, was the sum of $6,000, for which no payment has been made. 
. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1907. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. H. 
Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Gov 
ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, for their use, took possession of the church property described in the 
petition shortly after the battle of Perryville, and used and occupied the same for hos- 
pital purposes for about five months, removing therefrom the pews, pulpit, and other 
furnishings which, together with the walls of the building, were materially damaged. 
The reasonable rental value of the building, together with the damage done thereto in 
excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of eleven hundred 
dollars ($1,100), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 
1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the same was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



62 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF GREEN RIVER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE, MUNFORD- 

VILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12944. Trustees of Green River Collegiate Institute, successor 
to Hart Seminary, of Munfordville, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill 
in the following words: 

"[S. 6622, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Green River Collegiate Institute as successor to Hart 
Seminary of Munfordville, Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the trustees of the Green River Collegiate Institute, of Munford- 
ville, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation 
for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the building then known ~as the 
Hart Seminary, owned by the educational institution now known as the Green River 
Collegiate Institute, by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said collegiate institute appeared in this court March 23, 1907, 
and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: 

The Green River Collegiate Institute, as successor to Hart Seminary, as well as 
Hart Seminary, was loyal to the Government of the United States, and in no way 
gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion; that said seminary property was taken possession of and 
occupied by United States military forces as officers' quarters at various times during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and during the periods of such occupancy 
was greatly damaged; that at the time said property was first taken by the United 
States military forces as aforesaid, it consisted of a well-constructed brick building 
about 70 by 20 feet; that because of the repairs made necessary to restore the prop- 
erty after it was vacated by the military forces to the condition in which it was before 
such occupation, together with reasonable rental value of said property during the 
period of its occupation, the said institute, as successor to the said seminary, was 
damaged in the sum of |1,200. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- 
ber, 1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Hart Seminary of Munfordville, Ky., as 
an organization, of which the Green River Collegiate Institute is the successor, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the building and grounds of the Hart Seminary of Munfordville, 
Ky., of which the Green River Collegiate Institute is the successor, and occupied 
and used the same for military purposes, and damaged the same. Said use and 
occupation, together with the damages incident thereto in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, were then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and twenty- 
five dollars ($525), no part of which has been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the 
statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 63 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, MOUNT 

STERLING, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13022. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Mount Sterling, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 7133, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

' ' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling Ky . 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, 
the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, 
use, and incidental injury to said church by the United States military forces during 
the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- 
sion of the buildings and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount 
Sterling, Ky., and used and occupied the same as a hospital for wounded and sick 
soldiers and also as a barracks, for a long period of time, by reason of which much 
injury was done to the same, and that the reasonable rental value of said property 
during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to 
the same condition in which it was before such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, 
for which no payment was made; that the claimant has at all times borne true alle- 
giance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily 
aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on - loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 
1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. 
Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Mount Sterling, Ky., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
occupied said building and used the same as a hospital and barracks. The reason- 
able rental value of said building, together with the damages in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, was the sum of four hundred and sixty dollars ($460), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of 
the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute 
of limitations should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having 
resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



64 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, MOUNT STERLING, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13032. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, 

Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in 
the following words: 

" [S. 7210, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
'• A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, the sum of 
one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and 
incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared iri this court March 22, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: 

The Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ivy., was lcyal to the Government of 
the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United 
States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that from the fall of 1862, 
during the winter of 1862-63, the said church building and its grounds were occu- 
pied for camping purposes by the United States military forces, thereby preventing 
the use of said church property for the holding of religious services, and that the 
fence surrounding the large grounds of the church was burned by United States 
military forces for fuel, and the property otherwise greatly injured by said occupa- 
tion, which injuries to the property as aforesaid, together with reasonable rental 
value of said property during the time of such occupation, amounted to |1,200, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- 
ber, 1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the 
petition and used and occupied the same for quarters and damaged the same. The 
reasonable rental value of the same at the time and place of occupation, together 
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of six hundred and 
fifty dollars ($650), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the 
bar of any statute of limitation should be waived or which shall be claimed to excuse 
the claimant for not having resorted to some established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 65 

TRUSTEES OF SULPHUR WELL CHRISTIAN CHURCH, NEAR 
NICHOLASVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12958. Trustees of Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nich- 
olasville, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 
On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in 
the following words: 

' ' [S. 6748, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, 

Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of the Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, 
Kentucky, the sum of four hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, 
use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the 
civil war. " 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed 
their petition in which it is substantially averred that: 

The Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Ky., was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the 
United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that during the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion the said church building was taken possession of 
and occupied by United States military forces as a picket post in the defense of Camp 
Nelson, Ky.; that said occupation by the United States military forces completely 
prevented the holding in any manner of religious services therein during the period 
of such occupation; that during the time the property was thus occupied by United 
States forces the building was greatly damaged, the benches, carpet, and other fur- 
nishings therein being completely destroyed, all of which, together with reasonable 
rental value of said property during the said time, damaged the said church to the 
value of $400, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- 
ber, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs arid argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Ky., as a church, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the peti- 
tion and used and occupied the same as a picket post for a few weeks in the defense 
of Camp Nelson, Ky. The said use and occupation of the church building, together 
with the damage thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there rea- 
sonably worth the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), no part of which appears to 
have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any tribunal of the Government prior 
to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United 
States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute 
of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having 
resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copv. 

Test this 10th day of December, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 5 L. 



66 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ELIJAH WARREN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2285. Elijah Warren v. The United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Elijah Warren, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from 
whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed October, 1893. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 2285. Elijah Warren v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the 
Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of February, 



On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of October, 1893, found that the 
person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged 
to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said 
war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of February, 1908. 

Brandenburg & Brandenburg appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
M. L. Blake, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That during the said war he was a resident of Green County, State of Kentucky, 
and was the owner and possessor in said State and county of certain quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies which in the fall of 1862 and the spring of 1863 were 
seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then 
stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 

1 bay horse '. $135 

1 brown horse 135 

Total 270 

The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after the 
arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACT. 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took from claimant in Green County, State of Kentucky, 
property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and 
place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars 
($175). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 67 

TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF NICHOLASVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11603. Trustees of the Christian Church of Nicholasville, 

Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 231, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees fo the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky. 

" Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of |the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
wise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church, of Nicholasville, Ken- 
tucky, the sum of five hundred and sixty dollars, for use of and damage to 
church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of 
the rebellion. ' ' 

The trustees of the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky., appeared and filed 
their petition in the court June 14, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the month of November, 1862, the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Christian Church 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date until November, 
1863. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said 
occupancy was the sum of $560. 

That during said occupancy the furniture and fixtures belonging to said church 
were removed and appropriated to the use of the Army, and the building was other- 
wise seriously damaged on account of said occupancy. That the cost to restore the 
building, its furniture and fixtures, to the condition in which they were when said 
occupation commenced was the sum of $1,000. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that 
the church alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of January, 
1905. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. 
Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took and occupied the church 
building belonging to the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky., for a period of 
about one year, and damaged the same. Said use and occupation, including damages 
incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and forty dollars 
($940.) 

By the Court. 

Filed January 9, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 



68 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF BRYANTS- 

VILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11724. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Bryantsville, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

On March 28, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, 
being Senate bill No. 5286, Fifty-eighth Congress: 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and Bouse of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereb3^, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, 
Kentucky, the sum of two thousand dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupa- 
tion, and destruction of property belonging to said church by United States military 
forces during the late civil war. " 

Said bill was referred to this court on May 6, 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate, for findings of fact, under the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Garrard, 
State of Kentucky. 

That they are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting trustees of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Ky.; that during the late civil war said 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Ky., was the owner of certain 
land near the town of Bryantsville, on which was situated a certain substantially 
constructed brick church building, used and occupied by said church as a house of 
worship; that in the summer or early fall of 1861 the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took possession of said premises and building and used the 
same practically continuously during the remainder of said war as a hospital for the 
treatment of contagious and other diseases; that during said o'ccupation said building 
was greatly damaged; that petitioners now present this claim upon behalf of said 
church as follows, to wit: 

To use and occupation of church building for hospital purposes during the civil 
war, during a period of three and one-half years, and damages incident to 
such use and occupation $2, 050 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Bryantsville, Ky., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
occupied said church building and used the same for hospital purposes for about six 
months. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear was the sum of $410. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution 
of the Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limi- 
tations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not 
having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 69 

HANNAH NALLY, EXECUTRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11115. Hannah Nally, executrix of William A. Nally, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 2, 1903, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3. 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 298U, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of William A. Nally. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to Hannah Nally, of Zoneton, Bullitt County, Kentucky, widow of William 
A. Nally, deceased, the sum of three thousand three hundred dollars, for property 
taken from the said William A. Nally and used by the troops of the United States 
Army. ' ' 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition in the court July 25, 1903, in which 
she makes the following allegations: 

The decedent, William A. Nally, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout his life, and resided in the State of Kentucky until his decease. 

During the late civil war the decedent was the proprietor of a brickyard in the city 
of Louisville, Ky., where he carried on an extensive brick-making business. In 
the summer of 1862, while the decedent was carrying on his said business, the prem- 
ises were taken possession of by the United States troops in command of Gen. L. H. 
Rousseau, then in occupation of the city of Louisville. The decedent at the time had 
on the premises for use in connection with his business extensive sheds and 600 cords 
of seasoned wood; the lot, which comprised a city square and a half of land, being 
inclosed with a staked and ridered ten-rail fence, the property of the decedent. The 
soldiers, acting under the direction of their officers, carried away and used the wood, 
the planks of which the sheds were made, and the fencing above mentioned. 

The following are the items of the property so taken and used by the soldiers and 
their values: 

600 cords of wood, at $5.50 per cord $3, 300 

45,000 feet of lumber, at $15 per M 675 

250 panels of fencing, at 50 cents each 125 

. Total 4, 100 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of Janu- 
ary, 1908. 

Messers. Dudley & Michener appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General 
by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. William A. Nally, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Louisville, 
Ky., by military forces of the United States, for their use, to wit, in December, 1861, 
270£ cords of wood, for which said decedent was paid the sum of $811.50. There- 
after, in 1862, there was taken from said claimant's decedent by said military forces, 
for their use, property of the kind and character described in the petition, then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand and thirteen dollars ($2,013), for 
which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-General October 8, 1879, 
and was by that officer disallowed, May 10, 1886, because he was not satisfied from 
the evidence that the property claimed for had been taken as alleged. Thereafter 
the same was presented to Congress and referred to this court March 2, 1903, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the 
case. 



70 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

No other competent evidence lias been adduced respecting the delay in the prose- 
cution of said claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANTIOCH METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OP STEWART, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13021. The Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Stewart, Mercer County, Ky., v. The United States. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 7132, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session. 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, 

Mercer County, Kentucky. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer 
County, Kentucky, the sum of five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occu- 
pation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces 
during the civil war. ' ' 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court on the 22d day of March, 1907, 
and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Ky., con- 
sisting of a well-constructed frame church building, and occupied the same from the 
date of the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, until March or April, 1863, as a 
hospital; that all the pews in said church were destroyed and the property otherwise 
greatly injured thereby; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such 
occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same con- 
dition as before such occupation, was the sum of $500, for which no payment has been 
made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of 
the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encour- 
agement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by 
the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer County, Ky., 
as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition and used the same 
for hospital purposes for a short period of time and damaged the same. The reason- 
able rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then 
and there the sum of two hundred and forty dollars ($240), no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department or officer of the 
Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 71 

case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier 
prosecuted. 

Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in the making up of 
these findings. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, HARRODSBURG, KY. 

'•Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13014. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrods- 
burg, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrodsburg, 

Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by this Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrodsburg, 
Kentucky, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, in full compensation for 
the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military 
forces during the civil war." 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred that: ^fj 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- 
sion of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South,£of 
Harrodsburg, Ky., consisting of a large, well-constructed brick building of two floors, 
and occupied the same as a hospital from on or about October 9, 1862, until March 
or April, 1863; that all the benches were taken out and the property otherwise greatly 
injured; that a claim on account of the occupation and injury to said property was 
forwarded, with evidence, to the Hon. C. D. Tucker, Member of Congress, some years 
ago, but no payment ever made; that the reasonable rental value of said property 
during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to 
the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $2,500, for which no 
payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to 
the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, 
abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Percy M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrodsburg, Ky., as an organiza- 
tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the late civil war, and just after the battle of Perryville, Ky.. in Octo- 
ber, 1862, the claimants' church building, described in the petition, was taken posses- 
sion of by the military forces of the United States and used as a hospital for about 
six months for the wounded soldiers of both the Federal and Confederate armies, 
and while so occupied the building and furnishings were damaged. The reasonable 
rental value of said building during said period, including the damages in excess, of 
ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars 
($750), no part of which appears to have been paid. 



72 ALLOWAXCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The claim herein was never presented in any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no 
satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 17; 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1908. 

[SBAi.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF PERRYVILLE, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12998. The Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Ky., v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 7031, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the session of the Presbyterian Church of Peyryville, Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assevibled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the session of the Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Kentucky, the sum of one 
thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to 
said church by military forces of the United States during the civil war. ' ' 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States occupied 
the property of this claimant, consisting of a brick church building, as a hospital from 
directly after the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, until March or April, 1863; 
that all the pews were taken out and destroyed; that the reasonable rental value of 
said property during said period, including the repairs necessary to restore said prop- 
erty to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,000, for which 
no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance 
to the Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, 
abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 10th day of February, 1908, on loyalty and 
merits. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 

Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these 
findings. 

The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the 
defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States by proper authority 
took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- 
pied the same for hospital purposes for a short period of time and damaged the same. 
The reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, was then and there the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars ($325), 
no part of which seems to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 73 

United States Senate hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satis- 
factory reason is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier prosecuted. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of February, 1908. 

Tseal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, BRANDEN- 
BURG, KY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13061. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Brandenburg, Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 7439, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, 

Kentucky. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Kentucky, 
the sum of five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and 
incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Ky., consisting 
of a well-constructed brick church building about 60 by 40 feet in size, and occupied 
the same as quarters for a considerable period; as a result the property was greatly 
injured by reason of numerous portholes being opened in the brick walls and in other 
respects; that the reasonable rental value of said church, including the repairs nec- 
essary to restore it to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of 
$500, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne 
true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way vol- 
untarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Gov- 
ernment. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyaltv and merits on the 19th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by M. L. Blake, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by 
the defendants, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both 
sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS Or FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Ky., as an organiza- 
tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- 
pied the same for military purposes and damaged the same. The reasonable rental 
value of said property, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was then and there the sum of one* hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no 
satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier presented. 



74 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these 
findings. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric, Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DANVILLE, KY. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13066. Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, 

Ky., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Kentucky. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of 
one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and 
incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of -the property of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Ky., consisting 
of a very large, handsome, finely constructed brick church building, about 75 by 60 
feet in size, with extensive galleries, and occupied it throughout as a hospital directly 
after the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, and for a long time thereafter, the 
property thereby being greatly injured ; that the reasonable rental value of said prop- 
erty during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property 
to the same condition after such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no pay- 
ment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the 
Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, 
or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these 
findings. 

The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none having been adduced 
by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on each 
side, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Ky., as an organization was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by. proper authority, 
took possession of the church property described in the petition and used and occupied 
the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said 
1iee and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and ten dollars ($610), no part 
of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 75 

United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no 
satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LOUISIANA. 

VICTORIE C. AVET, ADMINISTRATRIX OF VINCENT AVET. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 11480. Victorie C. Avet, administratrix of estate of Vincent 
Avet, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

By resolution of the United States Senate adopted on April 26, 1904, Senate bill 
No. 5201, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact under 
the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as 
the Tucker Act. 

Said bill reads as follows: 

' ' A BILL For the relief of the estate of Vincent Avet, deceased, and Mrs. Victorie C. Avet. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- 
ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 
not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Vincent Avet, deceased, and of Mrs. 
Victorie C. Avet, of Iberville Parish, Louisiana, the sum of three thousand seven 
hundred and nineteen dollars and seventy-five cents, in full compensation for stores 
and supplies and use and occupation of property taken for the use of and used by the 
Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of January, 
1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Iberville, 
State of Louisiana; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administra- 
trix of the estate of her deceased husband, Vincent Avet; that during the late civil 
war said Vincent Avet was a citizen of France, and a resident of said parish of Iber- 
ville. La.; that during said war said Vincent Avet was the owner of certain real estate 
in the town of Plaquemine, in said parish and State, being a certain corner lot in said 
town, upon the front of which lot was situated a brick store building, and upon the 
rear of which lot and facing upon the side street stood a frame dwelling, all of the rea- 
sonable worth or value of $7,500; that said premises were taken into the possession of 
the United States military forces, under proper authority, and were used and occupied 
by said forces for military purposes from January 1, 1863, until November 14, 1865, a 
period of two years ten and a half months; that the reasonable rental value of said 
premises, together with damage incident to said use and occupation, was $2,657; that 
during said war said military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, 
for use of the Army, quartermaster stores, to wit, three horses, of the reasonable value 
of $150 each; that this claim is stated as follows: 

To use and occupation of one brick store building and one frame dwelling, for 

two years ten and a half months, and damages incident to such occupation. . $2, 657 
To 3 horses, at $150 each 450 



Total 3, 107 

That said Vincent Avet became a citizen of the United States by naturalization on 
November 22, 1866, in the United States court for the district of Louisiana; that by 
reason of the fact that said decedent was during the civil war an unnaturalized alien, 
he had not the right to present and prosecute this claim before the Southern Claims 



76 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Commission, established by act approved March 3, 1871. the jurisdiction of said com- 
mission being restricted to the claims of loyal citizens of insurrectionary States during 
Baid war; that by reason of said naturalization said decedent had not the right to pre- 
sent and prosecute this claim before the French-American Claims Commission. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Vincent Avet, was during the late civil war an alien resid- 
ing at Plaquemine, parish of Iberville, La. He was a citizen of France, who continued 
his residence in Louisiana throughout said war, and the evidence establishes that he 
was neutral throughout said war. 

II. During said war Vincent Avet was the owner of certain real estate in the town 
of Plaquemine, parish of Iberville, La., the same being and constituting the south- 
west corner of Main and Seminary streets, in said town. Upon said lots stood a brick 
store building and also a frame dwelling, all of the reasonable value of about six thou- 
sand dollars ($6,000). Said premises were taken into the possession of the United 
States military forces and used and occupied by said forces for military purposes from 
January 1, 1863, to November 14, 1865, a period of two years ten months and a half. 
The reasonable value of the use and occupation of said premises for said period, to- 
gether with the damage done to the buildings incident to such occupation, was the 
sum of twenty-two hundred dollars ($2,200). No payment appears to have been made 
on account of such use and occupation or damage. 

III. During said war the United States military forces took from claimant's decedent 
in Plaquemine, parish of Iberville, La., horses as described in the petition, which 
were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars 
($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

IV. The claimant herein being an alien— a citizen of France — residing in Louisiana 
during the late civil war. did not for that reason present his claim to the Southern 
Claims Commission or to any other department of the Government until its presenta- 
tion to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, 
as bereinbefore set forth in the statement of this case. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EUGENE BARROW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10246. Eugene Barrow, administrator of the estate of Mary J. 
Barrow, deceased, v. The United States.] 

The claim in the above-entitled case was referred to the court by resolution of the 
United States Senate in April, 1900, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act. The following bill accompanied said resolution: 

"[S. 2239, 56th Cong., 1st sess.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Mary J. Barrow. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to Mary J. Barrow, of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, or to her legal representatives, twenty- 
three thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars, being for supplies and stores taken 
from her by the military forces of the United States for their use during the war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the same being in full for and the receipt of the same 
to be taken and accepted as a full and final discharge of her said claim against the 
Government. ' ' 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in court, alleging, in substance, that 
he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. Francisville, West Feliciana 
Parish, La.; that he is the administrator of Mary J. Barrow, deceased, late a citizen 
of Orleans Parish, La. ; that the decedent, Mary J. Barrow, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion; that she owned and 



ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 77 

resided upon a large plantation of over 1,000 acres, before and during the war of trie 
rebellion, in West Feliciana Parish, La., and was the sole owner of the following prop- 
erty, which was taken from her by the military and naval forces of the United States: 

30 mules, at $200 each $6, 000 

2 fine saddle horses, at $500 each 1, 000 

2 fine carriage horses, at $300 each 600 

4 yoke oxen with wagons, carts, and gears, at $250 1, 000 

4 work horses, at $150 each 600 

3 saddle horses, at $250 each 750 

l*pony, at $150 150 

150 head of cattle, at $25 each 3, 750 

450 acres of corn and fodder 10, 000 

Total 23, 850 

(Taken in June, 1863.) 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 14th day of May, 1906. 

P. E. Dye appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, 
his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the 
interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following • 

findings^of'fact. 

I.IThe evidence shows the claimant's decedent to have been a British subject dur- 
ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and hence neutral. 

II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in the parish of West Feliciana, 
State of Louisiana, during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United 
States for the use of the Army, by proper authority, property of the kind and character 
above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of twelve thou- 
sand six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($12, 625), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 17, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of December, A. D. 1906. « 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

STEPHEN D. CLARK, FOR HIMSELF AND AS HEIR OF EMILY C. LOVE- 
LACE AND CHARLES L. CLARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11856. Stephen D. Clark, for himself and as sole heir of Emily 
C. Lovelace, deceased, and of Charles L. Clark, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

By resolution adopted March 3, 1905, the United States Senate referred to this 
court Senate bill No. 6459, Fifty-eighth Congress, for findings of fact under the terms 
of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill, so referred, reads as follows: 

" A BILL For the relief of the heirs af Julia M. Clark, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Julia M. Clark, deceased, late of Catahoula 
Parish, Louisiana, the sum of nine thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, in full 
compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal 
forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
April, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles 
F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



78 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 
That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Catahoula, 
State of Louisiana; that he is the sole heir and representative of his half-sister, 
Emily C. Lovelace, deceased, and of his brother, Charles L. Clark, deceased; that 
during the late civil war petitioner and his said half-sister and his said brother were 
citizens of the United States and were minors of tender years, residing at Sicily 
Island, Catahoula Parish, State of Louisiana, upon a plantation belonging to peti- 
tioner and said other minors. 

That during said war the United States military forces, acting under proper author- 
ity, took from petitioner and his said coowners quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated and converted the same to the use of 
the United States Army, to wit: 

Taken from plantation at Sicily Island, La., about September 26, 1864, by 
command of Col. H. A. McCaleb, Sixth U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, 
and Captain Organ of same command : 

30 mules, at $150 each $4, 500 

12 horses, at $150 each : 1, 800 

5 wagons, at $50 each 250 

100 head fat cattle, at $25 each 2, 500 

100 sheep, at $4 each 400 

50 fattening hogs, at $10 each . m 500 

Total 9, 950 

That about 1866 petitioner's said brother, Charles L. Clark, departed this life, 
While still a child of tender years, unmarried and intestate; that thereafter peti- 
tioner's half-sister, Emily C. Lovelace, departed this life, unmarried and intestate; 
that all other children of petitioner's father and mother had previously departed this 
life, without issue, leaving petitioner as the sole heir and representative of his said 
half-sister, Emily C. Lovelace, and of his said brother, Charles L. Clark; that during 
the period allowed by the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, for presentation 
of claims to the Southern Claims Commission petitioner was a minor, having been 
born in 1854; that on account of petitioner's minority this claim was not presented 
to said Commission. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, and the decedents, Emily C. Lovelace and 
Charles L. Clark, remained throughout the late civil war loyal to the United States 
Government, their loyalty resting upon their tender ages. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, and his coowners, Emily C. Lovelace and 
Charles L. Clark, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds men- 
tioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth 
the sum of four thousand two hundred and forty dollars ($4,240). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. The decedent, Emily C. Lovelace, was the half-sister of the petitioner, Stephen 
D. Clark, and the decedent, Charles L. Clark, was the brother of the petitioner. 
Since the close of said war said Emily C. Lovelace and said Charles L. Clark have 
departed this life, unmarried and intestate, leaving the petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, 
as their only heir and representative, said Stephen D. Clark appearing in this case in 
his own right, as owner of an undivided one-third interest in the above-described 
property at the time of taking thereof, and also as heir and representative of his said 
coowners. 

IV. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions 
of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and the reason given for such 
nonpresentation is the tender age of himself and his decedents during the time allowed 
by law for such presentation. ■ 

By- the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 79 

ANTOINE DECUIR ET AL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11549. Antoine Decuir, Joseph Auguste Decuir, and Rose Decuir 
Maeias, heirs of Antoine Decuir, deseased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On February 1, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, 
to wit: 

"A BILL For the relief of Antoine Decuir, deceased.; 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Antoine Decuir, deceased, *late of Pointe 
Coupee Parish, Louisiana, the sum of fourteen thousand eight hundred and seventeen 
dollars and fifty cents, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use 
of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on April 
26, 1904, for findings of fact under the provisions of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

This case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Bran- 
nigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The petitioners in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are the only heirs of Antoine Decuir, deceased, who departed this life 
in 1865; that during the late civil war said decedent was a resident of the parish of 
Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana; that during said war the United States military 
forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, for the use of the Army, 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, 
to wit: 

Taken from plantation of Antoine Decuir, in Pointe Coupee Parish, La., in February 
or March, 1863, by Second Rhode Island Cavalry, under Colonel Corliss: 

24 large mules, at $150 each $3, 600 

8 fine horses at $150 each 1, 200 

3 large cane wagons, at $100 each 300 

6,000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 6, 000 

100 merino sheep, at $3 per head 300 

6,000 pounds fresh pork, at 10 cents per pound 600 

5 barrels of sugar, at $20 per barrel 100 

8 cows, at $25 each 200 

Total 12, 300 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Antoine Decuir, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from said decedent, in the parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana, quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kinds described above, which were then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of four thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars 
($4,115), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. It appears from the evidence than an effort was made in July, 1874, to present 
this claim to the Claims Commission established by the act approved March 3, 1871, 
which effort was made after the expiration of the time allowed by law for filing of 
claims before said Commission, and it also appears that a further effort to present 
this claim was made in 1879, and that claimant's decedent had no knowledge of the 
law limiting the time for filing claims before said Commission. These facts are reported 
as bearing on the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation 
of said claim. 



80 AT.T. OW A NTT. OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

IV . The claimants. Antoine Deciiir. Joseph Auguste Decuir, and Rosa Deeuir 
Macias. are the children and only heirs oi said Antoine Decuir. deceased, the person 
who owned the property above mentioned a r the time of the taking. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of June. 1906. 

[seal.] John" .Randolph, 

Assistarit Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHAELES E. DELATTE. ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court oi Claims. Congressional. No. 10184. Charles R. Delatte. administrator of estate oi Louis 
Delatte. deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 19, 1900. the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, 
to wit: 

'A BILL For the relief of the estate of Louis Delatte. 

"jBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay. out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Louis Delatte. of East Baton Eouge Parish, 
Louisiana, the sum of four thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars, for stores 
and supplies taken and used by the United States military forces and damage [to 
property during the late war of the rebellion.'* 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate on 
April 25. 1900. for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the 
act approved March 3. 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December. 1904, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, and who owned the property alleged to have been 
damaged, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1906. 

Movers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James 
A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, .and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United Stares. 

The petition was filed by the representatives of Louis Delatte. deceased, prior to 
the substitution of the administrator as party claimant, and it is therein alleged that 
materials were taken by United States military forces from buildings belonging to 
said Louis Delatte in the city of Baton Eouge. La., and that a building belonging to 
him. was damaged, and that stores and supplies and property were taken from said 
Louis Delatte as follows: 

Materials from building on North and Main streets $1, 300 

Materials from building on Main street 1, 000 

Damage to real estate 700 

Materials from building on Pentatenture street 600 

2 horses, at 8100 each 200 

5 cattle, at 825 each 125 

2 bales cotton, 950 pounds, at |T per pound 950 

Total 4, 875 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on each side, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Louis Delatte. was. during the late war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion, a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of Baton 
Rouge. State of Louisiana, and was throughout said war loyal to the Government of 
the United States. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
possession of a certain dwelling house in said city of Baton Eouge belonging to said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 81 

Louis Delatte and used the same for at least two months for hospital purposes. 
During such occupation the building was considerably damaged, all interior parti- 
tions being torn out and a kitchen torn down. Said forces also tore down two other 
dwelling houses in said city belonging to said decedent and converted the materials 
secured'therefrom to the use of the United States Army, and also took from said 
decedent certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds men- 
tioned in the petition. The aggregate amount of the reasonable rental value of one 
building used as a hospital, with incidental damage thereto, of the value of materials 
taken from the two other buildings, and of stores and supplies taken, is one thousand 
and ten dollars ($1,010). for which no payment appears to have been made. No 
allowance is made for cotton charged for in the petition. 

III. Charles R. Delatte is the duly appointed and acting administrator of the 
estate of said Louis Delatte. deceased. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 15, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] Johx Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ODILE DESLONDE. 

[Court of Claim?. Congressional, No. 11092. Odile Deslonde. sole heir of Eloise Deslonde. deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

On March 2, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, the following bill was 
referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Eloise Deslonde, deceased. 

"Be it enacted bij the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- 
ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 
not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Mrs. Eloise Deslonde, deceased, late of 
New Orleans. Louisiana, the sum of nine thousand three hundred and twenty dollars, 
in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal 
forces during the late war of the rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 26th day of April, 
A. D. 1905. 

Movers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. 
Brandenburg, esq , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United State;. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the parish of Orleans, State of 
Louisiana: that she is the sole heir and representative of Eloise Deslonde. late of the 
parish of Iberville. State of Louisiana, where she resided during the late civil war; 
that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit: 

30 mules, at $150 each $4, 500 

8 horses, at $150 each 1, 200 

2.000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 2, 000 

50 sheep, at $2.50 per head 125 

20 hogs, at $5 per head 100 

1 lot of fodder and hay 515 

Total 8, 440 

That this claim was not presented to any officer or tribunal prior to its presentation 
to Congress in 1S99 by reason of the fact that during the time allowed for presentation 
of claims to the Southern Claims Commission said decedent was very old. taking no 
interest in business matters: that after the death of said decedent petitioner engaged 
an attorney to present said claim, but that nothing was done by said attorney; that 
thereafter another attorney was engaged to present the claim to Oongn 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 6 



82 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent, Eloise Deslonde, was a 
free person of color, residing in the parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana, during the 
late civil war, and that she was throughout said war loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from claimant's decedent property of the kinds described in the petition, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five thousand three 
hundred and twenty-five dollars ($5,325), for which property no payment appears to 
have been made. 

III. The claimant, Odile Deslonde, is shown by the evidence to be the sole heir and 
representative of the decedent, Eloise Deslonde. 

IV. It is shown by way of explanation of claimant's failure to present this claim to 
the Southern Claims Commission that claimant's decedent, Eloise Deslonde, between 
March 3, 1871, and March 3, 1873, was very old, taking no interest in business matters; 
that after the death of said decedent the present claimant engaged the services of an 
attorney to prosecute the claim and paid him money therefor, but that he did nothing 
in the matter and subsequently another attorney was employed. These facts are 
reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the 
presentation of the claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of May, 1905. 

Tseal.] - John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

DAVID P. GAYLE AND SARAH H. GAYLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10575. David P. Gayle and Sarah H. Gayle, administrators of 
estate of Alfred Duplantier, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim m the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces ot the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was first transmitted to the court 
by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on February 3, 
1886, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and com- 
monly known as the Bowman Act. By reason of the failure of the claimant to properly 
submit proof in support of his claim before the Southern Claims Commission, to which 
he originally presented his claim, the case presented by said reference was dismissed 
by this court on March 28, 1892, for lack of jurisdiction. 

On April 30, 1902, Senate bill No. 856, Fifty-seventh Congress, was referred to this 
court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact in accordance with 
the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 
Said bill reads as follows: ■ v 

"A BILL For relief of the legal representatives of Alfred Duplantier, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, the sum of fifty-five thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars to the legal 
representatives of Alfred Duplantier, deceased, late of East Baton Rouge Parish, Loui- 
siana, for stores and supplies taken from his plantation in the years eighteen hundred 
and sixty-two, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and eighteen hundred and sixty- 
four, for the use ot the Army of the United States during the late war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Novem- 
ber, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. . 83 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 
That they are citizens of the United States residing in the parish of East Baton 
Rouge, State of Louisiana; that they are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting 
administrators of the estate of Alfred Duplantier, deceased, late of said parish and 
State; that during said war the United States military forces, acting under proper 
authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States 
Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below 
stated, to wit: 

Taken from plantation of Alfred Duplantier, about 7 miles below the city of Baton 
Rouge, by United States troops, to wit, Fourth Wisconsin Cavalry, Second Louisiana 
Infantry, Twelfth Illinois Cavalry, and Forty-first Massachusetts Infantry, and other 
commands under command of Capt. Nelson F. Craigue, Captain Sumner, Colonel 
Montgomery, Colonel Fonda, Major Keating, Colonel Payne, Colonel Hogekins, and 
Quartermaster Porter : 

165,000 new bricks, at $15 per M $2, 475 

15 fine sugar mules, at $200 each 3, 000 

4 large cane carts, at $150 each 600 

5 horses, at $200 each 1, 000 

150 head of beef cattle, at $75 each 11, 250 

112 tons of hay, at $40 per ton 4, 480 

20,000 bundles of fodder, 15 tons, at $40 a ton 600 

40,000 feet cypress lumber, at $50 per M 2, 000 

200 sheep, at $7 per head 1, 400 

60 cords cypress wood, at $4 per cord 240 

3,000 bushels shelled corn, at $1 per bushel 3, 000 

960 gallons sirup, at $1.50 per gallon 1, 440 

36,000 pounds of sugar, at 20 cents per pound 7, 200 

1,680 gallons molasses, at $1 per gallon 1, 680 

6,000 pounds cotton, at 50 cents per pound 3, 000 

1 blacksmith shop and complete set of tools, with bellows 300 

Harness and gearing for 15 mules 180 

110 large hogs, at $10 each 1, 100 



Total 44, 945 

That said decedent presented this claim by petition and affidavits to the Southern 
Claims Commission under the act approved March 3, 1871, but because of the poverty 
of said decedent he was unable to take witnesses to Washington, D. C, to testify in 
person before said Commission as required by its rules ; that this claim was referred to 
this court on February 3, 1886, under the Bowman Act, and was tried on loyalty as 
case No. 412, Congressional, loyalty being found January 4, 1892; that on March 28, 
1892, the case presented by said reference was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; that 
said finding was certified to Congress February 15, 1896; that in said year 1896 Con- 
gress was prayed for further relief in the premises, and bills were introduced for relief 
of legal representatives of said decedent in the Fifty-fourth, Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, 
and Fifty-seventh Congresses. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimants' decedent, Alfred Duplantier, was during the late civil war a citizen 
of the United States, residing in the parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, 
and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies for the use of 
the United States Army, of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time 
and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of nine thousand six hundred 
and seventy-five dollars ($9,675). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. This claim was presented by claimants' decedent to the southern claims 
commission under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1871, but it appears 
in evidence that by reason of his property said decedent was unable to bring witnesses 
to Washington City to testify in person before said Commission as was required by 
its rules. The claim was referred to this court under the Bowman Act on February 
3, 1886, but was thereafter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by findings of fact and 
conclusions of law reported to Congress February 15, 1896. On December 22, 1896, 



84 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

a bill for relief of legal representatives of said decedent was introduced in the Fifty- 
fourth Congress. Bills were also introduced in the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty- 
Beventh Congresses, Senate bill No. 856, Fifty-seventh Congress, for relief of said 
representatives, being referred to this court as above set forth. 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has beeD 
delay or laches in the presentation of this claim. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

FELIX GUIDRY, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10928. Felix Guidry, administrator of the estate of Louisa 
Breaux, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by 
resolution of the United States Senate on the 27th day of June, 1902, for findings of 
fact, in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The bill, which was referred to the court by said resolution of the United States 
Senate, reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased, late of Lafayette 
Parish, Louisiana, the sum of twenty-four thousand five hundred and ten dollars, in 
full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal 
forces during the late war of the rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of Febru- 
ary, A. D. 1905. 

Moyers and Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General by George 
H. Walker, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Parish of Lafayette, 
State of Louisiana, and is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of 
the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased; that during the late war for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion said decedent resided in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louis- 
iana; that said decedent departed this life in June, 1863, leaving surviving her as her 
heirs four children: Felix Guidry; Arsene Guidry, now Broussard; Cecilia Guidry, 
■now Albarado, and Loretta Guidry, now Broussard, said children being then minors 
of a tender age; that subsequent to the death of said decedent the United States 
military forces, by proper authority, took from the heirs of said decedent and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

100 cords of rails, at $3 per cord $300 

600 barrels of corn, at $2 per barrel 1, 200 

25 bales of cotton, average net value to the United States Government, $192 

per bale 4,800 

40 horses, at $150 each 6, 000 

8 mules, at $150 each 1,200 

1 wagon and ox cart 150 

130 head of cattle, at $20 per head 2,600 

400 sheep, at $2.50 per head 1, 000 

100 head of hogs, at $10 per head 1, 000 

250 bushels of sweet potatoes, at 50 cents a bushel 125 

Total 18.375 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 85 

That this claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission by reason 
of the fact that the children and heirs of said decedent were ignorant of the existence 
of such commission, residing in the country and unable to read English, and being 
financially unable to incur the expense of taking witnesses to Washington, D. C; 
that said children, Arsene Guidry, now Broussard, Cecilia Guidry, now Albarado, 
and Loretta Guidry, now Broussard, were minors on March 3, 1873, the expiration 
of the time allowed for filing claims before said commission. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. The original owner of the property, the alleged taking of which forms the sub- 
ject matter of this claim, was Louisa Breaux, wife of Alexander Guidry. During the 
late civil war she resided in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, and died 
during the war and before the taking of the property charged for in this claim. Dur- 
ing her lifetime, by decree of court her estate was separated from that of her hus- 
band. She left surviving her the husband, Alexander Guidry, and four children. 
These four children became the heirs of her estate and were: Felix Guidry, Arsene 
Broussard (nee Guidry), Cecilia Albarado* (nee Guidry), and Loretta Broussard 
(nee Guidry). It appears from the evidence that said children were loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout said war, all being under the age of 16 
years in April, 1865. 

II. During said war there were taken from said four children of said Louisa Breaux, 
by the military forces of the United States, acting under proper authority, and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds enumerated in the petition, which at the time and place of taking 
were reasonably worth the sum of seven thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars 
($7,780), belonging in equal shares to said four heirs. 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

III. No allowance is made for cotton, no claim therefor being properly before the 
court, the bill referred to the court providing for payment of a claim for stores and 
supplies taken for the use of the United States Army, and the cotton not being shown 
to have been taken or used as an army store or supply. 

IV. As bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the 
presentation of this claim, it is shown that on March 3, 1873, the date of the expi- 
ration of the time limited for the filing of claims before the Southern Claims 
Commission, the children, Arsene Broussard (nee Guidry), Cecelia Albarado (nee 
Guidry), and Loretta Broussard (nee Guidry) were still minors. It is also shown in 
evidence that during the time limited for filing claims before said commission said four 
heirs of Louisa Breaux were unable to read the English language, and were ignorant of 
the existence of said commission and were also unable to have defrayed the expense of 
bringing witnesses to Washington City to testify in support of the claim, as would have 
been required by the rules of said commission, the claim being for more than $10,000. 

Whether or not these facts are sufficient to excuse claimants' failure to file their claim 
before the Southern Claims Commission is a matter resting in the legislative discretion 
of Congress. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of March, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ADOLPH HARTIENS, TUTOR, ETC. 

[Court of Claims of the United States. (Congressional, No. 1G196.) (Decided January 14, 1901.) 
(Purged of false testimony on loyalty December 3, 1906.) Adolph Hartiens, tutor to his three infant 
children, Sydney L., William W., and Mary R. Hartiens, being the issue of his marriage with Mary 
C. Osborne Hartiens, deceased, his late wife, who was the daughter and only heir at law of William 
H. Osborne, deceased, v. The United States.] 

EXPLANATORY. 

On October 30, 1906, this case came on to be heard under a second reference of the 
claim by resolution of the United States Senate June 27, 1906, on the question of the 
loyalty of the claimant's decedent, William PL Osborne. 



86 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

On the original reference of the claim by a resolution of the Senate April 25, 1900, 
the court found the facts, including a finding that the claimant's decedent was not 
loyal, to the Government of the United States throughout the' late civil war, and 
reported its findings to Congress January 16, 1901. 

Under the second reference the claimant shows to the court that the finding of not 
loyal so reported was based on false testimony, and after purging said finding there- 
from the claimant is found to have been loyal throughout said war and the finding in 
that respect is modified accordingly, as fully explained in the opinion hereto. 

The original findings, except as modified on loyalty, together with a statement of 
the case as originally reported, are as follows: 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was originally transmitted to the 
court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 18th day 
of April, 1884, on behalf of Bell E. Osborne, executrix of the estate of John Osborne, 
deceased, who was a partner of William H. Osborne, the claimant in this case; and 
in said case the court made findings of fact in favor of the estate of said John Osborne, 
as set forth in 24 C. Cls. R., pp. 417, 418. 

In the case wherein said findings were made no appearance was made on behalf 
of William H. Osborne, and no allowance was made in his favor, nor was his loyalty 
passed upon by the court. 

Thereafter, to wit, April 25, 1900, a bill, No. 4349, was introduced in the Senate 
of the United States directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the claimant 
herein the sum of $54,875, in full of the claim of the said William H. Osborne, 
deceased, for one-half of the stores and supplies taken for army and navy use from 
the said John and William H. Osborne, deceased, during the late war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion, which bill thereafter, to wit, May 2, 1900, by resolution 
of the United States Senate, was referred to the court under the provisions of the act 
of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the question as to the loyalty of the deceased 
claimant, William H. Osborne,. and also as to the merits of the claim, on the 22d day 
of May, 1900. P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant avers in his petition, among other things, that during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion William H. Osborne and John Osborne, his 
brother, were residents of Rapides Parish, La., and were the owners in partnership 
of a large plantation situated about 10 miles below Alexandria, on the Red River, 
in said State. The plantation was worked by them in partnership, each having 
the ownership of one-half of the products thereof. That during the campaign of 
Gen. N. P. Banks on the Red River in the spring of 1864 there was taken from their 
plantation by and for the use of the Army of the United States 1,000 hogsheads of 
sugar, containing 1,000.000 pounds, worth 9 cents per pound, or $90,000; 10,000 
bushels of corn, 50 head of mules, 14 head of horses, and 100 head of cattle, all of 
the value of $109,750, for which he, William H. Osborne, claims one-half. 

The court, after considering the evidence adduced and the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

' During the war for the suppression of the rebellion William H. Osborne, 
deceased, the person alleged to have furnished said supplies or stores, or from whom 
they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

II. The plantation from which the property was taken is situated 10 miles below 
Alexandria, La., and was the property of John and William H. Osborne. It was 
worked by them in partnership both before and during the war, up to the time of 
seizure. The property seized was in bulk on the plantation, and had not been divided 
between or set off to the respective partners. 

III. Between the 5th and 13th May, 1864, the military or naval forces of the 
United States seized and took from the plantation of John and William H. 
Osborne 1,000 hogsheads, 1,000,000 pounds, of sugar belonging to them as part- 
ners. This sugar was laden on the naval gunboats or army transports on the 
Red River- It does not further appear what became of it, nor whether it was 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 87 

issued to or used as stores or supplies by the Army or Navy; nor whether it 
came to the official custody of the chief quartermaster of the Department of 
the Gulf, in New Orleans, or of the chief commissary of the department; nor 
whether it was treated as abandoned or captured property and sold, and the proceeds 
paid into the Treasury. 

IV. The value of the sugar at the time of capture in the local market of Alexandria 
has not been shown; but it appears that on the 5th of May, 1864, the commissary 
department purchased large quantities of sugar in Alexandria at about 9 cents per 
pound. Private property at that time could not be taken out from the vicinity, for 
the reason that the evacuation of Alexandria by the military forces of the United 
States was then taking place, and all of the means of transportation were in the posses- 
sion and control of the Government. 

V. During the same campaign of General Banks on the Red River in the spring of 
1864 there was taken from the plantation by and for the use of the Army property of 
the kind described in the petition, consisting of corn, mules, horses, and cattle, like- 
wise belonging to the said partnership of John and William H. Osborne, the fair and 
reasonable value of which at the time and place of seizure was $19,750, one-half of 
which amount, to wit, $9,875, belonging to the claimant's decedent, William H. 
Osborne. 

VI. No reason is shown why the claim in this case was not prosecuted before the 
Commissioners of Claims, or in this court while pending under reference of act of 
March 3, 1383, other than the death of claimant's decedent, which occurred on the 2d 
day of December, 1865, leaving his widow, Mary L. A. Duvol Osborne, and their 
daughter and only child, Mary Corinne Osborne, then less than 1 year of age. 

VII. In 1868 said Mary L. A. Duvol Osborne intermarried with one Henry H. 
Rogers, and thereafter in 1872 she died without issue by said second marriage. 

December 1, 1887, said Mary Corinne Osborne intermarried with Adolph Hartiens, 
and on February 8, 1892, she died, leaving three minor children, to wit, Sidney L., 
William W., and Mary R. Hartiens, grandchildren of said William Osborne, deceased. 

Peele, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: 

The claim in this case is for stores and supplies alleged to nave been taken "from the 
plantation of John and William H. Osborne, near Alexandria, La., in May, 1864, by 
the military forces of the United States. 

The claim of John Osborne for his one-half of the property so taken was presented 
to the Commissioners of Claims, who rejected the same because prior thereto the claim- 
ant had gone into bankruptcy. Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by the 
Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under the. act of March 3, 
1883, known as the Bowman Act; and the claimant having been found loyal, findings 
were made on the merits and certified to Congress, and the amount therein allowed 
has since been appropriated and paid. 

The claim of William H. Osborne was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims, 
he having died in December, 1865 (before the creation of the Commissioners of Claims), 
leaving surviving him his widow and one child, then less than 1 year old. The widow 
subsequently intermarried with Henry H. Rogers and in 1872 died. 

The claim not having been presented to the Commissioners of Claims by the widow 
or by anyone representing her estate or the estate of said minor child was for that 
reason barred by section 4 of the act of March 3, 1871, creating the Commissioners of 
Claims (16 Stats. L., 525), as well as by section 3 of the Bowman Act. 

The first bill (Senate, 4349) first session Fifty-sixth Congress, for the relief of William 
H. Osborne for his one-half of the property so taken was referred to the court by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate May 2. 1900, under section 14 of the act of March 3, 
1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The provision of that section authorizing the court to find "any facts bearing upon 
the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which 
shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established 
legal remedy," would seem to imply that claims otherwise barred might be referred 
to the court under that section. Such being the view of the court with respect to 
claims of this character, the court entertained the claim. 

The claimant as tutor, under the laws of Louisiana for the minor heirs of said William 
H. Osborne, filed his petition setting forth the facts, and the case was docketed as 
No. 10196 Congressional. 

Findings were made in the case and reported to Congress, including a finding that 
the claimant's decedent, William H. Osborne, through whom the claim was made 
and from whom the stores and supplies were alleged to have been taken, was not loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. But as loyalty is not jurisdictional under the Tucker Act, as it is under 
the Bowman Act, the court found the facts on the merits of the claim. 



88 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter the claimant filed his motion for a new trial on loyalty with affidavits in 
support thereof, which was argued and submitted January 7, 1901; and on January 12, 
1901, said motion was overruled and the findings as then amended and filed were, on 
January 16, 1901, on motion of the claimant's attorney, certified to Congress. The 
foregoing findings are identical with those so certified except on the question of the 
loyalty of said William H. Osborne. 

Thereafter, by resolution of the United States Senate, bill 5615, first session, Fifty- 
ninth Congress, then pending in the Senate, providing for an appropriation to pay 
said claim, was, on June 27, 1906 — more than five years after the overruling of the 
motion for a new trial — again referred to the court for examination and report under 
said act of March 3, 1887. 

The claimant's contention is that the second reference of the claim operates to 
grant him a new trial and to reinvest the court with jurisdiction and power to again 
examine and adjudicate the claim. 

When the court had complied with the act under which the claim was referred, and 
reported its findings to Congress, as it did, its jurisdiction was thereby exhausted; 
and being exhausted, it was not within the power of one branch of Congress by the 
second reference of the same claim under the same act to again clothe the court with 
jurisdiction to reinvestigate or consider the claim. But while this is true, such 
rereference, the court holds, operates to return the findings of fact. 

The court, by the return of the findings of fact, having thereby regained control of 
the case, will determine what further steps may be taken. That is to say, if such 
findings are in any respect based upon false or fraudulent testimony or were procured 
through the misconduct of any of the parties to the case, their attorneys or witnesses, 
the court will inquire in respect thereto until the findings so returned are purged 
therefrom. 

The claimant contends, and the evidence seems to satisfy his contention, that the 
unfavorable finding on the question of loyalty of his decedent, William H. Osborne, 
was necessarily based on the testimony of one Dennis Kelly, as the testimony of all 
the other witnesses in the case was favorable to the loyalty of said decedent. 

The witness Kelly, in his first deposition, taken at Alexandria, La., in behalf of 
the defendants in 1890, testified in substance that said Osborne was by profession a 
civil engineer; that in 1863, a short time before the raid of the Federal Army under 
General Banks, said Osborne was employed as engineer superintending the construc- 
tion of rafts in the Red River at Fort De Roussey, about 30 miles below Alexandria, 
La., and that he had a foreman under him; that they were at the time expecting a 
vessel of the United States up the river known as the Queen of the West, and that the 
rafts were being constructed to prevent the vessels of the United States from coming 
up the river. 

In the deposition of said Kelly, taken in Washington, D. C, in March 1906, it 
appears that a few months prior thereto his attention was called to his former testimony 
by the claimant's local attorney, and he disclaimed having testified as above indicated, 
saying that such former testimony was false; that said William H. Osborne was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion; that he so acted and expressed himself, and was so regarded by his neigh- 
bors and friends; that he was arrested by the Confederate forces and compelled to do 
what he did; that he saw him under arrest, and further, that he was not engaged as 
superintendent or otherwise at Fort De Roussey in constructing rafts. He further 
testifies in detail favorably to the loyalty of said Osborne, and says that he came to 
Washington, at the claimant's expense, to correct his former testimony. 

In explanation of why he had so testified on his first examination, he says he was 
at the time intoxicated and the claimant's local attorney, Mr. H. L. Daigree, who 
cross-examined said Kelly, says under oath, "When I cross-examined Mr. Kelly in 
this manner in Alexandria, La., I was forced to ask him very few questions, because 
during that examination I discovered that he was quite intoxicated. Therefore I 
ceased further examine him." 

Aside from the presumption of disloyalty to the United States arising from the 
residence of said William H. Osborne in an insurrectionary State the finding adverse 
to his loyalty was based on the testimony of Dennis Kelly, and if the testimony of 
Kelly is eliminated from the case, the claimant is entitled to have the finding on 
loyalty modified. 

In the Le More case (35 C. Cls. R.. 9), wherein a judgment had been rendered 
against the claimant in the district court for the southern district of Illinois, and 
on appeal to the Supreme Court had been affirmed, and the claim thus adjudicated 
was referred to this court under the Tucker Act. the doctrine of res judicata was held 
applicable, the court saying: 

"Certainly the Congress, by the language of the section of the act under which 
the reference was made, did uot intend that the court, in the ascertainment of the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 89 

facts for their information, should be governed by any other rules of evidence than 
those applicable to cases coming under our general jurisdiction; and if that be true, 
then it follows that the best evidence of the citizenship and rseidence of Queyrous, 
through whom the claimants assert title to the cotton, must be found in the case 
thus determined, which has become res judicata. 

"The rule is elementary that where* a controverted fact has been judicially estab- 
lished upon the evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction suGh fact so established 
can not be again controverted in any other action of a not higher nature between the 
same parties. (Spicer's case, 5 C. Cls. R., 34, and authorities there cited.) 

******* 

"For the reasons stated we must hold that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable 
to cases referred to the court under the act March 3, 1887. or the Bowman Act, for 
the reason, among others, that the court in the ascertainment of the facts in cases 
so referred is governed by the well-established elementary rules of the law of evi- 
dence, and being so governed the facts in such cases can be found only by judicial 
means and methods." 

Later in the same case (39 C. Cls. R.. 484), while that ruling was adhered to, the 
court said : 

"We do not believe it was the purpose of Congress by section 14 of the act of March 
3, 1887 (supra), that where cases had been adjudicated and become res judicata they 
should again be the subject of judicial investigation by this court under that act, 
unless it should be clearly shown that there was such mistake in the judicial pro- 
ceedings as if known to the court at the time would have affected its judgment." 

That being the rule with reference to cases which have been determined to judg- 
ment, there is no reason why the same rule should not apply in cases referred under 
the Tucker Act, where the court, in the exercise of judicial power in a judicial way 
finds the facts for Congress; and applying that rule to the facts in this case, respect- 
ing the loyalty of the claimant's decedent, it is manifest from the evidence origi- 
nally presented that but for the false testimony of Dennis Kelly this court would 
not have found adversely to the loyalty of William H. Osborne during the late civil 
war. In other words, if the testimony of Kelly had not been offered in evidence 
in the case when it was first tried, or if the present testimony of Kelly had been 
before the court at that time, the ruling of the court would have been different on 
the question of loyalty. Therefore, the court reaches the conclusion that the finding 
in respect to loyalty was based on false and misleading testimony, and being so 
based, the findings in that respect must be purged therefrom, which is accordingly 
ordered, and excluding the testimony of Kelly said William H. Osborne is found 
to have been loyal to the United States throughout the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

The former findings as thus modified in respect to loyalty, together with this opin- 
ion, wall again be certified to Congress under the original reference as case No. 10196. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3. 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1906. . 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ADOREA HONORE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11859. Adorea Honore, widow and sole heir of Emile Honore, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 26, 1905, Senate bill No. 6498, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this 
court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the provi- 
sions of sections 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the 
Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of Emile Honore. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to Emile Honore, of Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, the 



90 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

sum of nine thousand five hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores 
and supplies, and property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during 
the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 17th day of October, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. Q. Thomp- 
son, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the Parish of Pointe Coupee, 
State of Louisiana; that she is the widow and sole heir and representative of Emile 
Honore, deceased, late of said parish and State; that during the late civil war peti- 
tioner and her husband, being free persons of color, resided in said parish and State; 
that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies for the use of the 
Army, of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

3 horses, at $150 each $450 

3 mules, at $150 each 450 

4 cows, at $25 each 100 

2 calves, at $8 each 16 

12 hogs, at $4 each 48 

500 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 375 

1\ tons hay, at $20 per ton 30 

50 bushels potatoes, at $1 per bushel 50 

Total. 1 1, 519 

That, knowing this claim to be just, said Emile Honore during his lifetime prayed 
Congress for relief in the premises, and the claim was presented in the Fifty-sixth, 
Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the decedent, Emile Honore, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late war of- the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion in the parish of Pointe Coupee, 
State of Louisiana, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for 
the use of the Army, took from Emile Honore, since deceased, property of the kind 
and character described in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth 
the sum of nine hundred and seventy-six dollars ($976). No payment appears to have 
been made therefor. 

III. The property so taken was community property of the decedent, Emile Honore, 
and the claimant herein, Adorea Honore, his wife, in whom title to the property so 
taken is vested as the survivor of her deceased husband, Emile Honore. 

IV. While this claim was pending before Congress an affidavit was filed, made by 
said Emile Honore, who died before the reference of said bill to this court, in which 
affidavit he states that he was not advised by any tribunal established in the early 
seventies for the purpose of adjudicating claims of this character, and that as soon as 
he became advised that such claims could be collected, and as soon as he had means 
to warrant his undertaking the prosecution of the claim, he placed the same in the 
hands of an attorney for collection. 

The claim was not presented to any tribunal until its presentation to Congress in 
the Fifty-sixth Congress. The only tribunal ever open to the claimant was the Claims 
Commission, established by the act of March 3, 1871, and the time for presenting 
claims to said Commission expired March 3, 1873. 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there had been delay 
or laches in the presentation of the claim. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 91 

AURORE D. KERLEGAN, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11594. Aurore D. Kerlegan, administratrix of estate of Lucien 
Meuillon, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

On March 12, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate: 
"A BILL For the relief of Lucien Meuillon. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to Lucien Meuillon, of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the 
sum of seven hundred and ten dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies 
taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

On April 26, 1904, said bill was referred to this court, by resolution of the United 
States Senate, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm 
A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, 
State of Louisiana; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administra- 
trix of the estate of Lucien Meuillon, deceased, late of said parish and State; that dur- 
ing the late civil war said decedent was a free man of color, residing in said parish and 
State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quarter- 
master stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

1 horse $150 

2 horses, at $100 each 200 

25 hogs, at $5 each 125 

150 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel ' 150 

Total 625 

That said decedent, a free man of color, was unable to read or write the English lan- 
guage, spoke said language but little, and had no knowledge of the existence of the 
Southern Claims Commission. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Lucien Meuillon, was a free man of color, residing during 
the late civil war in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, and remained through- 
out said war loyal to the United States Government. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from claimant's decedent, in St. Landry Parish, La., for the use of the United States 
Army, stores and supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time 
and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of two hundred dollars ($200). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent, a colored man, could 
not read or write the English language and understood but little of said language. This 
claim was not filed before the Southern Claims Commission during the period allowed 
by the act of March 3, 1871. 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay 
or laches in the presentation of this claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



92 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

FLORVILLE KERLEGAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11437. Florville Kerlegan v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On December 15, 1903, the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate: 

" A BILL For the relief of Florville Kerlegan. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to Florville Kerlegan, of Vermilion Parish, State of Louisiana, 
the sum of six thousand six hundred and twenty-six dollars, in full compensation for 
stores and supplies and property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces 
during the late civil war." 

On April 26, 1904, said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United 
States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of April, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. 
Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the parish of Lafayette, 
State of Louisiana; that during the late civil war he resided in the parish of St. Martin, 
in said State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took from petitioner for the use of the Army quartermaster stores and 
commissary supplies of the kinds and values stated, to wit: 

Taken in 1863, by troops under command of Gen. N. P. Banks, from plantation 
of petitioner on Bayou Tortue, in the parish of St. Martin, State of Louisiana: 

5 horses, at $150 each $750 

50 sheep, at $2.50 each : 125 

7,500 feet of lumber for bridge, at $30 per M 225 

1 saddle and 1 bridle 25 

1 corncrib 50 

1 pigeon house 15 

3,000 rails (30 cords), at $3 per cord 90 

50 barrels of corn, at $2 each 100 

2,000 pounds of cotton, at 50 cents per pound 1, 000 

5 barrels of rice, at $2 each 10 

2 dozen cans of paint, at 25 cents each 6 

2 boxes glass 5 

40 hogs, at $6 each 240 

Furniture and bedding 400 

1 barrel of molasses 20 

Total 3, 061 

That petitioner is a colored man and unable to read or write and had no knowledge 
of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission between March 3, 1871, and 
March 3, 1873. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counselupon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, Florville Kerlegan, was during the late civil war a free colored 
man, residing in the parish of St. Martin, State of Louisiana, and throughout said war 
remained loyal to the United States Government. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from claimant in St. Martin Parish, La., quartermaster stores and commissary supplies 
of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were 
reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and seventy-one dollars ($671). 

No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. It 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 93 

is shown in evidence that the claimant could neither read nor write; that he could 
not speak English; that he had heard talk of a Southern Claims Commission, but did 
not make a claim because he had no money. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

AUGUSTIN LAZARE, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11416. Augustin Lazare, administrator of estate of Jean 
Baptiste Lazare, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 4978, Fifty-eighth Congress, reading as follows, 
was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of 
fact in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 
1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, deceased, 
late of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one thousand seven hundred and 
fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and 
used by the Federal forces during the late civil war. ' ' 

The case came on for hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of November, 
1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, 
State of Louisiana; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator 
of the estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, deceased, late of said parish and State; that 
during the late civil war said decedent resided in said parish and State; that during 
said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said 
decedent and converted to the use of the United States quartermaster stores, com- 
missary supplies, and property of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

1 young horse $100 

200 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 200 

2 work oxen, at $25 each 50 

14 cows, at $25 each 350 

30 hogs, at $5 each 150 

35 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 35 

5 bales cotton, at $192 per bale 960 

Total 1, 845 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I. Claimant's decedent, Jean Baptiste Lazare, was, during the late civil war, a 
colored man residing in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, and remained 
throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said war there were taken from claimant's decedent by the United States 
military forces, acting under proper authority, quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, for use of the Army, which at the 
time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and ninety- 
seven dollars ($697), for which no payment appears to have been made. 



94 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. In respect to the item of 5 bales of cotton claimed in the petition the court 
finds from the evidence that it is not shown whether it was used by the United States 
or sold and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

J. G. LE BLANC, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11857. J. G. Le Blanc, administrator of estate of Jean 
Crouchet, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

On March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, Senate bill No. 6463, 
Fifty-eighth Congress, for relief of the estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, was referred 
to this court for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887. 
Said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Jean Crouchet deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, late of Iberia Parish, 
Louisiana, the sum of twelve thousand five hundred and sixty dollars, in full com- 
pensation for stores and supplies and property taken for the use of and used by the 
Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of October, 
1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Clark 
McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Iberia, State 
of Louisiana; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of 
the estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, late of said parish and State. 

That during the late civil war said decedent had taken from him by the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, stores and supplies and property of 
the kinds and values below mentioned, to wit: 

10,700 feet of lumber, at $20 per M $214 

5 head of gentle milch cows, at $25 per head 125 

2 American horses, at $150 each 300 

4 American mules, at $150 each 600 

5 hogsheads of sugar, at $100 each 500 

160 pounds of coffee, at 50 cents per pound 80 

200 barrels of corn 200 

40 bales of cotton, at $192 per bale r 7,680 

Total 9,699 

The said decedent died in 1879, prior to the establishment of the French and Ameri- 
can Claims Commission, which was the only tribunal having jurisdiction of this claim. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Jean Crouchet, was during the late civil war a French 
subject, and is shown to have been neutral during said period. 

II. During the late civil war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent in 
the parish of Iberia, State of Louisiana, property of the kind and character described 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 95 

in the petition, other than cotton, which was then and there reasonably worth the 
sum of ten hundred and forty dollars ($1,040), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. During said war there was also taken from the said claimant's decedent forty 
(40) bales of cotton, which was used in the construction of fortifications as a military 
necessity, the value of which cotton is not established to the satisfaction of the court. 

IV. The claimant herein being an alien, a citizen of France, residing in Louisiana 
during the late civil war, did not for that reason present his claim to the Southern 
Claims Commission or to any other Department of the Government until its presen- 
tation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Sen- 
ate as hereintofore set forth in the statement of this case. 

By the Court. 
.Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARIANNE D. LEMELLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11423. Marianne D. Lemelle, administratrix of estate of Rigobert 
Lemelle, deceased, v. Trie United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On March 12, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased. 

'%"-Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased, late of Saint 
Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of five thousand two hundred and five dollars, 
in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Fed- 
eral forces dining the late civil war. " 

Said bill was referred to this court on April 26, 1904, by resolution of the Senate, 
for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of April, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. . 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, 
State of Louisiana; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administra- 
trix of the estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased, by virtue of appointment of the dis- 
trict court in and for the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana; that during the 
late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in said parish 
and State; that dining said war the United States military forces took from said 
decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores 
and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken from farm of decedent, near Opelousas, La., in April, 1863, by troops under com- 
mand of Gen. N. P. Banks. 



400 bushels corn, at §1 per bushel 

3 horses, at $150 each 450 

10 ponies, at $50 each 500 

4 work oxen, at $30 each 120 

30 cattle, at $15 each 450 

12 hogs, at $5 each ■ 60 

150 bushels of sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 150 

89 cords of wood, at $3 per cord 267 

1 ton of hay and fodder 20 

Total 2, 417 



96 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Rigobert Lemelle, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, under proper authority, took from claimant's 
decedent, in St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, stores and supplies of the kind 
and character above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the 
sum of eleven hundred and six dollars ($1,106), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

III. The evidence shows that the claimant's decedent departed this life during the 
civil war, leaving petitioner, his widow, and several children. It is also shown in 
evidence that the petitioner could only speak the French language and was unable 
to read or write the English language. These facts are reported as bearing upon the 
question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim, 
which was never presented to any officer or Department of the Government prior to 
its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NICAISE LEMELLE, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11588. Nicaise Lemelle, administrator of estate of Bellot A. 

Donato, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

By resolution of the United States Senate of April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 4463, 
Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact, in accordance 
with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March' 3, 1887, commonly known 
as the Tucker Act. Said bill so referred reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Belot Auguste Donato, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Belot Auguste Donato, deceased, late of Saint 
Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one thousand seven hundred and fifteen dollars, 
in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Fed- 
eral forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Febru- 
ary, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. 
Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, 
State of Louisiana; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator 
of the estate of Bellot A. Donato, deceased, who during the late civil war was a resi- 
dent of said parish and State; that said Bellot A. Donato was a free man of color; that 
during said war the United States military forces took from said decedent and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

3 mules, at $150 each $450 

2 American horses, at $150 each 300 

3 oxen, at $30 each 90 

5 cows, at $25 each 125 

5 yearlings, at $10 each 50 

300 bushels corn, at $1 300 

Total 1.315 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 97 

That said decedent was unable to read or write the English language, and during 
the time allowed for presentation of claims to the Southern Claims Commission was 
ignorant of his right to so present any claim; that this claim was presented to Con- 
gress in the Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses. 

The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Bellot A. Donato, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. This rinding by a majority of the court. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, under proper authority, for the use of the Army, took quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the kind and character above described, St. Landry 
Parish, State of Louisiana, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably 
worth the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

III. The evidence in this case discloses that the claimant's decedent did not pre- 
sent his claim before the Southern Claims Commission or any other department of 
the Government, or that any proceedings were had toward the prosecution of the 
claim during the lifetime of the claimant's decedent. No other explanation is given 
for this delay than the fact that the claimant's decedent was unable to read and 
write the English language. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ATHENAIS CHRETIEN LE MORE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF FELICITE 
NEDA CHRETIEN, DECEASED. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11523. Athenais Chretien Le More, administratrix of Felieite 
Neda Chretien, deceased, v. The United States.] 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 16th of December, 1903, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Felieite Neda Chretien, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That there be paid to Athenais Chretien Le More, administra- 
trix of Felieite Neda Chretien, late of New Orleans, Louisiana, deceased, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated , the sum of twenty-eight thousand 
eight hundred and sixty-three dollars and fifty cents, for property taken from the 
decedent by the troops of the United States during the years eighteen hundred and 
sixty-three and eighteen hundred and sixty -four." 

Under the foregoing reference the claimant appeared and filed her petition in this 
court, in which it is averred in substance that she is a citizen of the United States, 
residing at No. 1118 North Rampart street, New Orleans, La., and was duly appointed 
administratrix of the succession of her mother, Felieite Neda Chretien, deceased. 
That said Felieite Neda Chretien was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war of the rebellion and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. 

That the said Felieite Neda Chretien, together with Hypolite Chretien, since 
deceased, filed their claim June 28, 1872, with the commissioners of claims, under 
act of March 3, 1871, who reported the same to Congress as barred, because the evi- 
dence in support of the same was not filed within the time limited by law. The 
claim was stated to be theirs without any suggestion as to the extent of each one's 
share. That the said Felieite Neda Chretien and the said Hypolite Chretien did not 
have money enough to send to Washington the witnesses whose evidence was neces- 
sary to substantiate this claim. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 7 



98 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That the items of account which were before said commission and which are now 
presented to the court are as follows: 

Apr. j 1863. 77 bales of cotton, averaging 438 pounds, at 65 cents per pound. $21, 921. 90 
173 hogsheads of sugar, averaging 1,200 pounds, at 10 cents per 

pound 20, 760. 00 

1,600 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 1, 600. 00 

41 mules, at $200 per head 8, 200. 00 

6 horses, at $150 per head 900. 00 

16 tons of hay - 480. 00 

20 head of gentle stock, at $30 per head 600. 00 

4 pairs of oxen, at $60 per pair 240. 00 

30 head of sheep, at $4 per head 120. 00 

2 large wagons, at $250 each 500. 00 

5 cane carts, at $100 each 500. 00 

Oct., 1863. 40 head of hogs, at $10 per head 400. 00 

20,000 fence rails, at $20 per thousand 400. 00 

500 bushels of com, at $1 per bushel 500. 00 

30.000 fence rails, at $20 per thousand 600. 00 

Total 57, 721. 90 

That the claim of the aforesaid Hypolite Chretien for his interest in the said prop- 
erty was referred to this court by a similar resolution in July, 1897 (Senate bill 2278, 
55th Cong., 1st sess.), and the proceedings thereunder are numbered 9572 on the files 
of this court. In said proceedings petitioner on the 23d of July, 1903, filed an inter- 
vening petition which is still pending. The seizures for which this claim is filed 
were made in April, 1863, by officers and soldiers acting under orders of Major Webb, 
acting quartermaster in General Weitzel's Army Corps, and in October, 1863, by offi- 
cers and soldiers under command of General Franklin. 

That during the year 1863 and for a long time before, the said Felicite Neda Chre- 
tien and her son Hypolite Chretien were each the owner of an undivided half of a 
plantation situated on the Bayou Boeuf in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisi- 
ana, in township 3 south of the range 3 east, being part of the Garrigues Flaujac tract 
(6 Stat. L., 351, 551) containing about 1,000 acres, and another plantation in Prairie 
Plaisance in the said parish, belonging at one time to the said Gen. Garrigues Flaujac, 
containing about 1,300 acres. The slaves, utensils, and live stock on said plantations 
were owned by them share and share alike. The said Felicite and Hypolite formed 
a partnership for the development and cultivation of said plantations. The property 
hereinbefore enumerated was owned by the said partners and was taken from the 
plantation on the Bayou Boeuf first above mentioned. The right of said partners to 
said property so taken was half and half. 

That the 77 bales of cotton so seized and constituted a portion of the cotton which in 
April and May and June, 1863, was shipped from Barre's Landing, Louisiana (about 
13 miles from the Bayou Boeuf plantation), by way of Brashear City to New Orleans, 
to the custody of Quartermaster-General Holabird, the proceeds of which were paid 
into the Treasury of the United States. It had been carried to Barre's Landing either 
by the Federal troops or by slaves of the decedents. 

That Hypolite Chretien, who was the husband of Felicite Neda Chretien, died in 
the year 1839. Their son, Hypolite Chretien, who was the copartner of his mother, 
died in the year 1872, and Felicite Neda Chretien died in the year 1881. 

That claimant has no knowledge why the said Felicite Neda Chretien did not pre- 
sent her claim for the proceeds of this cotton to the Court of Claims under the act of 
Congress of March 12, 1863. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the loyalty of claimant's decedent on the 2d 
of May, 1905. John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by L. A. Pradt, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, F. W. Collins, 
and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of 
the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, made the following : 

"This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Felicite Neda Chretien, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout said war. 

"Filed May 18, 1905, J. R. 

" By the Court." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 99 

The case then coming on to be heard on the merits of the case on the 7th of Feb- 
ruary, 1906, John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., assistant attorney-general, by his assistant, F. W. Collins, 
esq., and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests 
of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. Felicite Neda Chretien, since deceased, from whom the stores and supplies here- 
after mentioned were taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. In April or May, 1863, there were seized by the military forces of the United 
States, under command of General Banks, on the plantation of the claimants, on 
Bayou Boeuf, in St. Landry Parish, La., about seventy bales of cotton, one-half of 
which belonged to the claimant's decedent. 

But what became of said cotton, and whether it was sold and the proceeds paid into 
the Treasury of the United States under the abandoned and captured property act of 
March 12, 1863, does not appear. 

^Neither does it appear that the United States appropriated claimant's cotton or 
applied the same to its own use or derived any benefit therefrom. 

III. She was in 1863 the owner of an undivided half of a plantation of 1,200 arpents 
situated in St. Landry Parish, La., from which were taken in April and May, 1863, 
stores and supplies of the reasonable value of fifteen thousand eight hundred and 
ninety dollars ($15,890), of which the share of the claimant's decedent was seven 
thousand nine hundred and forty-five dollars ($7,945). It does not appear that pay- 
ment has been made for any part thereof. 

IV. As to whether there was delay or laches in presenting said claim, it does appear 
that the claimant's decedent originally presented her claim to the commissioners of 
claims, but through poverty of claimant's decedent, it was impossible to procure the 
attendance at Washington of the witnesses, which was required by the commissioners 
in claims amounting to over $10,000. Thereafter the claim was presented to Congress 
and referred to this court, as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of March, 1 906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

• Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ALPHONSE MEUILLON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11422. Alphonse Meuillon v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

By resolution of the United States Senate adopted on April 26, 1904, the following 
bill was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 
14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit: 

"A BILL For the relief of Alphonse Meuillon. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to Alphonse Meuillon, of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the 
sum of six hundred and thirty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies 
taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war. " 
jJ^The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of March, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles 
F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, 
State of Louisiana, where he resided during the late civil war; that during said war 
the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner and 



100 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores of the kinds and 
values below stated, to wit: 

1 horse $100. 00 

1 horse 60. 00 

1 stallion r 150. 00 

1 buggy 150. 00 

1 saddle 25. 00 

Total 485. 00 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

I. The claimant was during the late civil war a free person of color residing in 
the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, and remained throughout said war loyal 
to the Government of the United States. 

II. During said war there was taken from the claimant by the United States mil- 
itary forces, under proper authority, property of the kinds described in the petition, 
for the use of the United States Army, which at the time and place of taking was 
reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and forty-five dollars ($245). No pay- 
ment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. This claim was not presented to the Claims Commission under the terms of 
the act approved March 3, 1871, and was not presented to any department of the 
Government until its presentation to Congress in 1902. It appears in evidence that 
claimant was during the civil war a free colored man; that he is unable to read or 
write the English language, and during the time allowed by law for presentation of 
claims to the Claims Commission had no knowledge of his right to present a claim to 
that Commission. These facts are reported as bearing on the question whether there 
has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim, and as being facts claimed 
to excuse claimant for not having resorted to any legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JACINTHA STROTHER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9558. Jacintha Strother, for herself and as administratrix of 
the estate of Joseph T. Strother, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on July 20, 1897, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act. 

"[S. 2506, Fifty-third Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Mr. and Mrs. J. T. Strother, of Louisiana. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Mr. and Mrs. J. T. Strother, of Louisiana, the sum of sixty- 
two thousand dollars, for property taken and used by the United States Army in the 
war of eighteen hundred and sixty-one. " 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court July 6, 1903, in which she 
makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Orleans, State 
of Louisiana; that she files this petition in her own right and as administratrix of the 
estate of Joseph T. Strother, deceased; that during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion petitioner and her said decedent were citizens of the United States, residing 
in the parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana; that during said period the United 
States military forces, by proper authority, took from petitioner quartermaster stores 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 101 

and supplies of the value of $12,217 and converted same to the use of the United States 
Army, as follows, to wit: 

Taken by United States troops, under command of Generals Herron, Lawler, Dana, 
Banks, and Ullman, at Morganza, La., in 1863, 1864, and 1865: 

817,700 feet of lumber, at $10 per M $8, 177 

808,000 bricks, at $5 per M 4, 040 

Total .' 12, 217 

That said materials were secured from the demolition of: 1 eighteen-room dwelling; 
3 large stables; 1 fodder house; 1 corn house; 1 farm building; 1 sixteen-room hotel 
building; 1 storeroom and kitchen; 2 large warehouses; 1 tailor shop and dwelling; 2 
two-story store buildings with storerooms; 1 billiard saloon; 1 blacksmith shop; 2 
cooper shops; 2 eight-room cottages; 1 post-office building and dwelling, 6 rooms. 

That dming said period there were taken from claimant's decedent, said Joseph T. 
Strother, by the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies of the value of $5,540, as follows, to wit: 

Taken by United States troops under command of Generals Herron, Lawler, Dana, 
Banks, and Ullman, at Morganza, La., in 1863, 1864, and 1865: 

5,400 feet lumber (from three cottages), at $10 per M $540 

10 fine horses, at $150 each 1, 500 

100 cows, at $10 each 1, 000 

100 ponies, at $25 each , 2, 500 

Total 5, 540 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on December 8, 1903, 
Messrs. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the 
United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Jacintha Strother and Joseph T. Strother were 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression oi 
the rebellion. 

II. The value of the property belonging to the present claimant and her deceased 
husband at Morganza, Louisiana, taken by the military authorities of the United 
States, was six thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($6,750).' 

III. Part of the property, of the value of $2,750, so taken and used belonged to the 
present claimant's deceased husband, Joseph T. Strother, and the remainder to the 
claimant in her own right. She has been appointed administratrix of her husband's 
estate. 

IV. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act 3d 
March, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 15th June, 
1878 (20 Stat. L., p. 550, 5). The evidence which has been offered by the claimant 
bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be re- 
moved is as follows: The present claimant's husband died in 1866, before the existence 
of the Commissioners of Claims. The present claimant, after the Board of Commis- 
sioners had been established, sent the claim to J. Ambler Smith, esq., an attorney at 
law in the city of Washington, to be presented to the Board, and she supposed and be- 
lieved that it had been so filed. Being then informed that under the rules established 
by the Commissioners of Claims it would be necessary for her to bring her witnesses to 
Washington to testify before the Commissioners, and having no means to bear the ex- 
pense of so doing, she abandoned the presecution of the claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 28, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of March, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



102 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

FREDERICK T. WIMBISH, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM R. WIMBISH. 

[ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11521. Frederick T. Wimbish, administrator of William R. 
Wimbish, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by or furnished to 
the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebel- 
lion. On the 26th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a 
bill in the following words: 

" [S. 4373, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

'A BILL For the relief of the estate of William R. Wimbish. 

''Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
n Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the estate of William R. Wimbish, or to his legal representative, of West Feliciana 
Parish, Louisiana, nineteen thousand eight hundred and twenty-six dollars, the same 
being in full for and to be taken and accepted as a full and final discharge of his claim 
for supplies and stores taken from him by the military and naval forces of the United 
States for their use during the war for the suppression of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared in this court June 14, 1904, and filed his petition, in which 
it is substantially averred — 

That dming the war for the suppression of the rebellion William R. Wimbish, 
deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States; that while residing on 
his plantation on Bayou Tunica, parish of West Feliciana, La., about the 5th of 
November. 1863. the following supplies and stores were taken aboard the United States 
transport Taylor: 

150 head of beef cattle, at $25 $3, 750 

4 yoke oxen, $75 per head 600 

1 saddle horse 300 

] saddle and bridle 25 

1 large mule 200 

1 set carriage harness , 50 

1 lot of poultry 10 

1 boy's saddle 15 

List of property taken November 8, 1863, by troops under command of Colonel 
Bacon, Sixth Michigan Volunteers, and carried on board same vessel for 
army use: 

1,500 barrels corn, at $1.25 1, 875 

1 four-mule team, harness, and wagon 750 

1 horse, saddle, and bridle 225 

1 lady's saddle ■. 25 

1 lot ginned cotton 225 

2 head beef cattle 150 

50,000 feet of cypress lumber, at $2.50 per hundred 1, 250 

75 head fattening hogs , at $20 per head 1, 500 

2 ponies, saddles, and bridles 200 

1 pair of extra fine mules 400 

25 mules, at $150 3, 750 

3,500 barrels of corn, at. $1.25 per bushel 4, 375 

Making a total of 19, 675 

The case was argued and submitted on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of April, 
1907. 

Raleigh Sherman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

.The court, upon the evidence and after considering the brief and argument of counsel 
on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, William R,. Wimbish, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the late civil wa- 1 



ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 103 

II. During said period there was taken from claimant's decedent in West Feliciana 
Parish, La., by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the 
use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of fifty-one hundred dollars 
(|5,100). no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. It appears that the claim herein was presented by the deceased claimant to 
General Canby. whose headquarters were in New Orleans, La., through H. C. War- 
mouth, esq., an attorney at law at that place; that after calling several times for his 
conclusion, he was informed that his papers were lost in moving from one headquarters 
to another: that subsequently, year after year, the claim was again made out and for- 
warded to Col. B. B. Simms. Riggs House. Washington. D. C. , who advised him that his 
"claim is filed, or registered." In April, 1904, the United States Senate, by resolu- 
tion, referred the claim to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, 
as hereinbefore mentioned. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

REMY BAGARRY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10909. Remy Bagarry v. The United States.] 

The claim in the above-entitled case for cotton, supplies, or stores, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court 
by resolution of the United States Senate on the 27th day of June, 1902, under the 
Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of February, 1903. 
Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Bran- 
denburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

Claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Iberia Parish, La., where he 
resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said period 
the. United States forces, by proper authority, took from him cotton and quartermaster 
stores and commissary supplies of the value of $17,274, and appropriated the same to 
the use of the United States Army, as follows 

Taken in May, 1863, by General Banks's army: 

24 bales cotton, 12,300 pounds, at $1.08 per pound $13, 284 

1 blacksmith shop and tools 730 

4 tons iron 640 

1,300 pounds § iron, for making plows 130 

1 liquor saloon, 1 billiard, glassware, etc 1, 400 

6 milch cows and 6 calves, at $35 each 210 

17 cows and 11 calves in the pasture 315 

2 draft horses , . 300 

1 baker's wagon 75 

1 hunting gun with bag, etc 45 

1 saddle .' 25 

70 barrels corn 70 

200 head chickens and other fowls 50 

Total 17, 274 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, Remy Bagarry, was a foreigner during the late war for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion, and was therefore neutral. 

II. There was taken from the claimant, in Iberia Parish, State of Louisiana, during 
the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of 



104 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand five hundred and twenty dollars 
($1,520). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

No allowance is made for the cotton alleged to have been taken, as it does not appear 
that the United States received the benefit thereof or that any proceeds therefrom 
ever came into the Treasury of the United States. 

III. The claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission or any other 
tribunal of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this 
court under the act aforesaid ; and no evidence is offered by the claimant under the act 
3d March, 1887, " bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in 
presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing 
upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or 
which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any estab- 
lished legal remedy," except that the claimant removed from the United States to 
Mexico during the civil war and remained in that country until about 1883 or later. 
The period allowed by law for the presentation of claims to the Southern Claims Com- 
mission expired during the claimant's absence in a foreign country. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 16, 1903. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of February, 1903. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ARTHUR TAYLOR, SURVIVING PARTNER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11479. Arthur Taylor, surviving partner of Arthur Taylor 
and Louis Taylor, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by 
resolution of the United States Senate on the 26th day of April, 1904, for a finding of 
facts in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 
188,7, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of Novem- 
ber, A. D. 1904. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George 
H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: 

That he is a person of color and a citizen of the United States, residing in the par- 
ish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, where he resided during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion; that during said war petitioner and his father, Louis 
Taylor, as partners, owned certain personal property accumulated by their own 
labor; that said Louis Taylor was during the war a resident of said parish and State, 
and departed this life in 1867, and that petitioner presents this claim as surviving 
partner; that during said war the military forces of the United States, acting under 
proper authority, took from petitioner and his said partner, Louis Taylor, and con- 
verted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary 
supplies, of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken about November, 1863, by a detachment of the army under command of 
Gen. N. P. Banks, near Vermilionville (now Lafayette), La. - 

40 bushels of shelled corn, at $1 per bushel $40 

4,000 bundles of fodder, 6,000 pounds, at $20 per ton 60 

8 head of cattle, at $20 each 160 

4 fat hogs, at 250 pounds each 50 

2 mules, at $100 each 200 

5 horses, at $100 each 500 

Total 1, 010 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 105 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Arthur Taylor, and his deceased 
partner, Louis Taylor, were loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant and his decedent, during the war of the 
rebellion, in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which 
was then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and eighty-seven 
dollars ($787), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

COMMISSIONERS OF JUDAH TOURO ALMSHOUSE FUND, NEW 

ORLEANS, LA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12532. The Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Alms- 
house Fund, of New Orleans, La., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for the use and occupation of and damage to the property of an 
endowed charitable institution by the military forces of the United States during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 12th day of June, 1906, the United 
States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 1219, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Board of Commissioners of Judah Touro Almshouse, of New Orleans, 

Orleans Parish, Louisiana. , 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is 
hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
wise appropriated, to the board of commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse, of 
New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the sum of two hundred and eighty-one 
thousand five hundred and eighty-five dollars, in full compensation for the use 
and destruction of its buildings and other property by the United States troops 
during the civil war." 

The claimant, the Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse Fund, 
appeared in this court on the 11th day of July, 1906, and filed their petition, in 
which it is substantially averred that — 

By the will of the late Judah Touro, who died in New Orleans, La., on June 18, 
1854, a fund was left in trust for the purpose of establishing in the city of New Orleans 
an almshouse for the relief of the poor and aged. With additional donations said fund 
was increased to about $200,000, and was placed under the control of a board of direct- 
ors incorporated by the legislature of Louisiana. 

A site for the building of the almshouse was donated, valued at $50,000, and on 
February 22, 1858, the directors commenced the work of constructing the same. The 
building was substantially completed in the early part of 1862. It was a three-story 
structure of superior style and materials, and at the time stated the sum of $190,000 
had been expended in cash by the said directors and a further indebtedness of $16,000 
incurred. 

During the month of April, 1862, said building and premises were occupied for 
military purposes by the United States troops, and were so exclusively used and 
occupied from that time continuously until the 31st day of August. 1865, when the 
building was destroyed by fire through the gross negligence of the military authorities 
in charge. 



106 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That claimant is entitled to recover the rental value of said land and premises during 
the period they were so occupied, and also to recover compensation for the value of the 
'building so destroyed, as follows: 

Rent from April, 1862, to August 31, 1865 f 81, 585 

Value of buildings destroyed r 206. 000 

Total 287, 585 

, On account of the total destruction of said almshouse the trusts declared in the will of 
said Judah Touro became incapable of execution, so that on March 23, 1867, the 
legislature of Louisiana passed an act for the relief of the said directors, winding up the 
affairs of said institution and directing that the balance of the funds on hand, then 
amounting to $7',575.13, be turned over to the mayor and council of the city of New 
Orleans, to hold upon the same trusts as declared in said will; that thereafter and until 
the creation of the Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse Fund by act 
of July 8, 1902, there was no person competent or authorized to prosecute this claim; 
that since its incorporation on the latter date the petitioner has made diligent efforts in 
the prosecution of the case. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on October 5, 1907. 

Ralston & Siddons appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. 
Faust, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant corporation was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. The late Judah Touro, by will dated January 6, 1854, bequeathed a fund of 
$80,000 to his executors in trust as an endowment and for the construction of an alms- 
house in the city of New Orleans, La., for the purpose of contributing, so far as possible, 
to the prevention of mendicity in the city. The fund so created was subsequently 
largely increased by other private donations of property and money. 

III. By act of the legislature of the State of Louisiana (No. 134 of 1855) to incor- 
porate the Touro Almshouse the executors under said will, together with the mayor 
of New Orleans, were made perpetual directors, and with two other directors to be 
elected annually by the city council were charged with the execution of said trust. 

IV. The directors of said institution proceeded in the year 1858 to erect an alms- 
house building upon certain land, a city block fronting on the levee, which had been 
donated for the purpose. Plans were adopted and in the following year the structural 
work was commenced. This work was continued until the spring of the year 1862. 

V. In August, 1862, after the occupation of the city of New Orleans by the Federal 
forces, said buildings were designated by official order of General Butler as mustering 
headquarters for native guards and were used for that purpose. 

At the time of said occupation by the military authorities of the United States said 
buildings were in an unfinished condition — the roof on the left wing of the main 
building, the towers in front toward the river, and the roof on the rear building were 
uncovered and no doors or window sash were in either of said buildings. 

On January 15, 1864, said buildings were used by the United States military au- 
thorities as a recruiting depot for the Corps d'Afrique; a new slate roof was put over 
the whole building, new floors were laid on each story, and wooden partitions, doors, 
and window sashes were put in. There were also bunks, gun racks, kitchens, and 
other necessary improvements, at a total approximated cost to the United States of 
$49,000. What part of said $49,000 was expended for completing and improving said 
building and what part for bunks, gun racks, kitchens, etc., does not appear. 

VI. On the night of September 1, 1865, while in possession of said military authori- 
ties, said almshouse was destroyed by fire. By special order of Ma]. Gen. E. R. S. 
Camby, Headquarters Department of Louisiana, dated New Orleans, September 6, 
1865, a board, consisting of three army officers, was appointed, and met in that city 
on September 10, 1865, to investigate and report the circumstances connected with 
the burning of said almshouse. 

Eighteen witnesses were examined under oath, consisting of Capt. C. M. Smiley, of 
the Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry, stationed in the buildings at that 
time; Lieutenant Roberts, Ninety-second United States Colored Infantry, acting 
assistant quartermaster, in charge of said buildings when burned; Lieutenant New- 
man, Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry; Sergeant Alexander and Corporal 
Moore of the guard on the night in question, four other noncommissioned officers, one 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 107 

company cook, one private; Lieutenant Letten and Private Crowley, of the New 
Olreans police force; Ballinger, chief engineer of the New Orleans fire department; 
W. A. Freret, architect, formerly in charge of plans and superintendence of buildings 
prior to said military occupation; James Freret, draftsman; one practical bricklayer, 
and clerk to the assistant quartermaster. 

The report of the board is as follows: 

"The board appointed by Special Orders, No. 50, Headquarters Department of 
Louisiana, September 6, 1865, respectfully submit the following report of the circum- 
stances connected with the burning of the Touro Almshouse on the night of Septem- 
ber 1, 1865: 

"It appears from the testimony that a fire was discovered in the third story of the 
right wing of the Touro Almshouse on the night of September 1, 1865, by Policeman 
John Crowley, of the third district police, at about twenty minutes before 11 o'clock 
p. m. Crowley repaired at once to the main entrance of the building on Levee street, 
and having ascertained that no troops were quartered in that story, told the sergeant 
of the guard that the building was on fire. Policeman Crowley gave the general 
alarm about five minutes before 11 o'clock p. m. The building at this time was occu- 
pied by detachments of the Second Maine Cavalry and Company K, First Louisiana 
Cavalry, numbering in all 53 men. 

"CompanyB, Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry, Capt. C. H. Smiley and 
First Lieut. S. A. Newman were on duty at the Touro Almshouse on September 1, 1865. 

"It appears from the testimony of Captain Smiley, Eighty-first United States Col- 
ored Infantry, that about half past 10 o'clock p. m., on the night of September 1, 
1865, one of the guards (Private Caston, Company B, Eighty-first United States Col- 
ored Infantry) came to his quarters in a hurried manner and said a policeman was 
at the gate and wished to see him; that he hastened to the gate, where the sergeant 
of the guard told him the policeman had gone up the street; that he met Policeman 
Crowley on Piety street, who told him there was a fire in the building and pointed to 
a window on the third story of the right wing, facing toward Piety street, through 
which a fire could be seen on the opposite wall and under the roof. It appeared to 
be one of the rafters burning. 

"Captain Smiley at once aroused his company and the detachments of cavalry, 
informed them where the fire was, and ordered the men to fill buckets with water 
and assist to extinguish the flames. Procuring the water he proceeded with a squad 
of men to the third story by a stairway in the left wing. There was no flooring on 
the third story of the right wing. The place where the fire was could only be reached 
by walking on the floor sleepers. This Captain Smiley attempted, but as the night 
was very dark and a high wind prevailing the lights borne by the men were extin- 
guished, and the attempt to reach the fire by the floor sleepers was abandoned. 
There were no ladders in or about the building. It is the opinion of Captain Smiley 
that if the fire could have been reached at this time it might have been extinguished 
with two buckets of water. Lieutenant Newman coincides with this opinion. 

"It appears from the testimony that the walls of the first and second stories of the 
building were covered with tar for a distance of 5 or 6 feet from the floor, and that 
sparks of coals dropping from the burning rafters upon the walls and igniting the tar 
caused the fire to spread with great rapidity through the entire second story. The 
first fire company arrived on the ground about three-quarters of an hour after the dis- 
covery of the fire. It appears that when the fire companies first arrived the cry of 
'powder' was raised, which created a general panic, so that the firemen left their 
engines and did not return to work until it was too late to render any service in stay- 
ing the progress of the fire. 

"It is the opinion of the chief engineer of the fire department that but for the panic 
created by the cry of powder the fire would have been extinguished. 

"The testimony shows clearly (and in view of the premises) that the fire originated 
at a point designated upon the accompanying plan where a ventilator or impure-air 
flue passes through the roof, and by the side of which is anchored a floor sleeper. It 
was this floor sleeper or rafter that was discovered to be on fire. 

"The testimony of Private M. W. Plumley, Company K, First Louisiana Cavalry, 
is to the effect that when the fire was first discovered he went up to the third story 
of the building and saw that it was the rafters next to the flue that were burning, and 
that a blue flame was issuing out of what appeared to be an open joint in the flue. 

"The cooking for the troops quartered in the Touro Almshouse was performed in 
the right wing of the building, on the side next to Piety street. On the opposite side 
of the right wing, near the angle of the wing and main building, a large bake oven 
was constructed June, 1864, under the orders of Lieut. G. H. Roberts, acting assist- 
ant quartermaster. It was used for baking purposes until about April 1, 1865, the 
date of discontinuing the volunteer recruiting service. This oven was oval inside 
and measured 12 by 12 feet outside. It was built against the ventilator (shown in 



108 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the accompanying drawing), and a raise on the outside conveyed the smoke into the 
ventilator used as a chimney. No fires were ever used in any other part of the 
building. 

"It appears that this bake oven was used on the afternoon of September 1, 1865, by 
the cooks of the detachment of the Second Maine Cavalry to bake beans, and Private 
Plumley testifies that he heard enlisted men say ' that sparks were coming out of the 
place in the flue near the roof, and if they were not careful they would set the build- 
ing on fire.' It further appears that during the conflagration men of the detachment 
of the Second Maine Cavalry were heard to say that 'the baked beans had fired the 
building.' 

"It was over the ventilator or impure-air flue, used as a chimney to carry the smoke 
from the bake oven, that Private Plumley discovered a blue flame issuing in the 
third story, directly under the roof of the building, and where all the witnesses tes- 
tify they first saw the fire. 

"At an inspection of the interior facing of the left wall of the right wing "a fissure 
in the ventilator used as a chimney to the bakehouse may be seen, from about three- 
fourths of an inch to 1 inch in width, extending from near the top of the ventilator 
downward about 3 feet. The ventilator is 9 inches in diameter, and where it went 
through the roof was 4 inches thick on the side toward the interior of the building. 

"It appears from the testimony of Mr. William A. Freret, an architect by profes- 
sion, who had charge of the plans and superintendence of the construction of the 
Touro Almshouse, that it was never the intention to heat the building save by steam; 
consequently there were no fireplaces nor chimneys in the main building, but there 
was a separate building in the rear of the main building intended for the culinary 
department of the institution. His testimony shows that the use of these air flues as 
fire flues when not intended as such was detrimental to the safety of the building, 
because the construction of the flues necessary for the escape of impure air (as called 
for in specification) is different from the mode of construction when prepared for fire 
flues. 

"He further says: 'I consider the employment of impure-air flues as fire flues, if 
not culpable, the result of ignorance, more especially the use of an impure-air flue to 
convey smoke from a bake oven of this size (12 by 12 feet).' 

"The use of any flue of the small dimension of 9 inches square, no matter how con- 
structed, would have been dangerous as a fire flue for a fire of such size. The accu- 
mulation of soot would render it so. The flue would have been liable to burst. 

"The testimony shows that no citizen had been seen in or about the building on 
the day of the fire. Sentinels were posted in the right and left wings of the main 
building. 

"It would seem impossible for a person to enter the building without being seen 
by the guard. Standing instructions were to send a patrol through the buildings and 
grounds every night. 

"It appears that every effort was made by officers, soldiers, and citizens to extin- 
guish the fire, and but for the panic created by the cry of 'powder' their-efforts would 
have been successful. 

" From the testimony adduced the board are of the opinion that the burning of the 
Touro Almshouse on the night of September 1, 1865, was occasioned by a fissure in the 
ventilator, the impure-air flue used as a chimney for the bake oven erected in the right 
wing of the building, through which fire was communicated to the rafters. . 

"Henry W. Fuller, 
" Colonel Seventy-fifth United States Colored Infantry. 

"Andrew C. Fitz, 
" Captain Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry. 
"Thos. Kanady, 
" Captain First New Orleans Volunteer Infantry." 

VII. The land upon which said buildings were erected was valued by its donor at 
the date of its donation in May, 1855, at $50,000. The invitations for plans, drawings, 
and estimates issued by the building committee limited the expenditure on said build- 
ing at $125,000. What portion of this amount had actually been expended by the 
trustees in the construction of said unfinished building does not appear. 

VIII. On March 23, 1867, the legislature of the State of Louisiana passed an act 
(No. 100 of 1867) for the relief of the directors of the Touro Almshouse, reciting the fact 
that they had expended a large sum of money in the erection of suitable buildings for 
said institution; that said buildings, being in an unfinished condition, were taken 
possession of by the United States military authorities and used for military purposes, 
and while in their possession were entirely consumed by fire, in consequence of which 
large expenditures and total loss the trusts can not now be carried into effect. The 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 109 

act then provided that the directors may transfer to the authorities of the city of New 
Orleans all money and property belonging to the Touro Almshouse, which shall be used 
only for the purposes directed by said testator, to be assumed by the city in the act of 
transfer. The city council by ordinance accepted the transfer upon the terms stated 
in the act. 

IX. On November 3, 1882, the city council by ordinance transferred the funds re- 
maining from said endowment ($7,575.13) to the Touro-Shakespeare Almshouse, then 
being erected. 

X. The present claimant, the Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse 
Fund, was created by act of the Louisiana legislature, passed July 8, 1902, for the pur- 
pose of collecting all moneys due to the endowment fund originating under the Touro 
will. Such moneys as are received are to be immediately transferred to the Touro- 
Shakespeare Almshouse. 

XI. The reasonable rental value of said property during said period of occupation 
was the sum of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000), or twenty-eight thousand dollars 
($28,000) less than the Government had expended thereon in the completion and repair 
of said building as aforesaid. 

The reasonable value of said building, including the expenditures so made by the 
Government, as aforesaid, was at the time of the destruction ninety-four thousand four 
hundred dollars ($94,400), which said sum of ninety-four thousand four hundred dollars 
represents the rental value and the destruction of the said building, no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

XII. No demand was made at any time for payment of this claim against the United 
States after the destruction of said buildings on September 1, 1865, until the year 1902, 
when the same was presented to Congress and referred to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth; nor is any reason shown why the same 
was not sooner presented ; but in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of the 
United States dated December 19, 1871, the Secretary of War transmitted on February 
12, 1872, to the Senate reports of his investigation furnishing the desired information. 

By. the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF ROBERT BRADLEY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11487. Hiram Baldwin, Joseph De France Baldwin, and Richard 
Robert Baldwin, heirs of Robert Bradley, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

On November 16, 1903, the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate: 

''A BILL For the relief of the estate of Robert Bradley and Mary C. Bradley, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the estate of Robert Bradley, deceased, and Mary C. Bradley, deceased, both late 
of Adams County, Mississippi, the sum of eighty thousand seven hundred dollars, in 
full compensation for stores and supplies and property taken for the use of and used 
by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." 

Said bill was referred to this court on April 26, 1904, by resolution of the Senate 
for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th of January, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by George 
M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States; that petitioner Hiram Baldwin is a 
resident of the county of Adams, State of Mississippi; that petitioner Joseph De France 
Baldwin is a resident of the parish of Madison, State of Louisiana; that petitioner 



110 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

Richard Robert Baldwin is a resident of the parish of Tensas, State of Louisiana; that 
petitioners are grandsons and heirs of E-obert Bradley, deceased, formerly a citizen of 
the United States and a resident of the county of Adams, State of Mississippi; that 
said Robert Bradley died intestate in 1863; that in the fall of 1863, and while peti- 
tioners were the owners of an undivided 16 per cent of the property and estate left by 
said Robert Bradley, their grandfather, the United States military forces took from 
said estate, by proper authority, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the 
kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken from Bradley plantation, about 8 miles southeast ot Natchez, Miss., by troops 
stationed at Natchez, including the Fifty-eighth Colored Infantry (or Sixth Missis- 
sippi Infantry) and other commands: 

40 mules, at $150 each $6, 000 

15 horses, at $150 each . 2, 250 

9,000 bushels shelled corn, at 75 cents per bushel 6, 750 

75 cattle, at $25 each 1, 875 

240 sheep, at $3 each 720 

10 hogs, at $8 each 80 

150 tons of hay and fodder, at $15 per ton 2, 250 

Total 19,925 

That petitioners were the owners of an undivided 16 per cent interest in and to 
said property so taken, said interest amounting to the sum of $3,188. 

That petitioner Hiram Baldwin is the eldest of petitioners and was born about 
1857; that during the time allowed under the provisions of the act approved March 
3, 1871, for presenting claims to the Southern Claims Commission, all of petitioners 
were minors; that this claim was presented to Congress and bills were introduced in 
the Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. The claimants herein were loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war for the suppression of the rebellion, they being infants of tender years, 
under 7 years of age, at the time of the taking of the property here claimed for. 

II. There was taken from the claimants about 8 miles from Natchez, Miss., in the 
fall of 1863, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the 
kind and character described in the petition, the reasonable value of the interest of 
the claimants herein being then and there the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000), 
same being one-sixth of the value of the property taken at the time. 

III. Laches. — At the time of the taking of the property mentioned in Finding II 
the claimants herein were infants of tender years, the eldest being born in 1857 and 
the other subsequent thereto. No claim appears to have been filed by anyone for 
them during their minority before the Commissioners of Claims under the act of 
March 3, 1871, nor do they appear to have presented any claim to Congress after they 
became of age until the year 1904 and the subsequent reference of said claim to the 
court by resolution of the Senate April 26, 1904, under the act of March 3, 1887. No 
evidence is offered otherwise to show why the claim was not presented or prosecuted 
by some one as guardian for them before the Commissioners of Claims or by them 
before Congress after they became of age. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 23d day June, 1906. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF. CERTAIN CLAIMS. Ill 

DELPHINE A. TAYLOR, AMY A. TAYLOR, AND MARIE C. QUAYS, EXECU- 
TRIX OF PHILIP D. QUAYS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11421. Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor, Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, and 
Marie C. Quays, executrix of Philip D. Quays, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, Senate bill No. 4971, 
Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of 
section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: 

" A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Adeliza Pickett Quays, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Adeliza Pickett Quays, deceased, late of East 
Carroll Parish, Louisiana, the sum of twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty 
dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by 
the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The claimants, in their petition, make the following allegations: 

That petitioners Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor and Mrs. Amy A. Taylor are residents of 
the county of Harrison, State of Texas; that petitioner Marie C. Quays is a resident of 
the parish of East Carroll, State of Louisiana. 

That petitioners, Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor and Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, present this 
claim in their own right as heirs of their deceased mother, Mrs. Adeliza Pickett Quays; 
that petitioner, Marie C. Quays, presents this claim as executrix of the will of Philip 
D. Quays, deceased, who was a son and an heir of said Mrs. Adeliza Pickett Quays, 
who departed this life prior to the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, leaving 
as her only heirs said Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor (then Quays), said Mrs. Amy A. Taylor 
(then Quays), and said Philip D. Quays. 

That during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took 
from said heirs of Mrs. Adeliza Pickett Quays, to wit, from said Mrs. Delphine A. 
Taylor (then Quays), said Mrs. Amy A. Taylor (then Quays), and Philip D. Quays, 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, 
and converted the same to the use of the United States Army, to wit: 

7 mules, at $150 each $1, 050 

25 hogs, at $10 each 250 

1 horse 150 

7 cows, at $25 each 175 

25 sheep, at $4 each 100 

22,300 bushels shelled corn, at $1 per bushel... 22, 300 

13 barrels molasses, at $20 per barrel 260 

400 pounds of sugar, at 10 cents per pound 40 

10,000 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 2, 000 

256 cords rails, at $3 per cord 768 

20 tons blade fodder, at $20 per ton 400 

Total 27, 493 

That petitioners had no knowledge of the existence of the Southern Claims Com- 
mission between March 3, 1871, and March 3, 1873, and were without means of pre- 
senting and prosecuting this claim during said period; that throughout said war the 
petitioners, Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor and Mrs. Amy A. Taylor and said decedent, 
Philip D. Quays, remained loyal to the Government of the United States. 

The claim was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 23d day of April, 
1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimants and the Attorney-General, by Philip 
M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor, one of the claimants herein, was not loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. 



112 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. Mrs. Amy A. Taylor and Philip D. Quays, deceased, were loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the late civil war by reason of then tender years. 

III. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the army, took from the claimants and Philip D. Quays, deceased, in 
East Carroll Parish, La., property of the kind and character above described, which at 
the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of forty-eight hundred and 
ninety-five dollars ($4,895), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

IV. It appears from the evidence that some receipts were given for the property 
taken, and that these receipts were placed in the hands of an attorney about 1868, 
who thereafter moved to another State, and the papers could not be found. It is con- 
tended by the claimants that they were without the means to bring witnesses to Wash- 
ington to testify in support of their claim if same had been filed before the Southern 
Claims Commission. 

No other action appears to have been taken by the claimants until petitions for relief 
were presented to Congress and the reference to this court under the^act of March 3, 
1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. 

These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay 
or laches in the presentation of this claim. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 29, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF RICHARD TERRILL. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10155. Cornelius F. Terrill, Cordelia I. Terrill and Vira R. Terrill- 
Harper, heirs of Richard Terrill, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States 
Senate, dated March 4, 1900, under the provisions of an act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the heirs of the late Richard Terrill of 'New Orleans, in the State of 

Louisiana. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the claim of Cornelius F. Terrill, of New Orleans, in the 
State of Louisiana; Cordelia I. Terrill, of Tarrytown, in the State of New York, and 
Vira R. Terrill-Harper, of Americus, in the State of Georgia, sole heirs of the said 
Richard Terrill, deceased, for the use and occupation by the military authorities of 
the United States of the following property belonging to the said Richard Terrill, 
situate and being at said New Orleans, namely, certain dwelling houses, with the 
furniture therein, warehouses, cotton presses, with machinery, and four horses taken 
by said authorities and never returned to said Richard Terrill. All and singular the 
said property so taken, used, and occupied between the fifteenth day of June, in the 
year eighteen hundred and sixtj-two, and the fifteenth day of June, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-five, be referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication." 

The claimants appeared and filed their petitions in this court May 7, 1900, in which 
they make the following allegations: That they are the sole heirs of Richard Terrill, 
deceased, late of New Orleans, La., where decedent resided during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion; that during said period, at various times, the mili- 
tary forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took 
possession of and occupied the Terrill cotton press, situate at New Orleans, La. ; that 
the reasonable rental value of said press was $36,000; that for repairing damages 
to said property was $7,369.43, and that part payment has heretofore been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 25th day of Novem- 
ber, 1903. 

John W. Butterfield, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by P. M. Ashford, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 113 

The court, after considering the evidence and the arguments and briefs on both 
sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the claimants' decedent 
was neutral in his relations with the Federal and Confederate governments, it not 
appearing that he said or did anything for or against either, though he resided in the 
city of New Orleans. 

II. On or about April 10, 1862, the claimants' decedent, Richard Terrill, resided 
in the city of New Orleans, and was the owner of a large cotton press. Said decedent 
was at the time in feeble health and, on advice of his physician, was removed from 
said city with his family and one servant to Coopers Well, a few miles away from said 
city, where he remained about a month, when he and his family removed to the house 
of a friend, Mr. Murray, with whom he resided for about fourteen months. At the time 
of the departure of the decedent from the city of New Orleans the cotton press owned 
by him was not being operated, and after the military forces of the United States took 
possession of the city of New Orleans they did, on or about June 15, 1862, seize and 
take possession of the real estate upon which the cotton press was located in the city 
ofjNew Orleans as abandoned property, subject to confiscation, and held the same 
until on or about September 15, 1863, when the same was turned over by the military 
authorities to the Treasury Department, and said property was held by the Treasury 
Department until on or about December 15, 1863, when it was restored to the decedent. 
For the period from September 15, 1863, to December 15, 1863, when the property was 
restored to the decedent, he was paid the sum of $2,841.63, for which he gave his receipt, 
wherein it was recited, among other things, that he released the United States from 
any claim for damages, and for use and occupation. 

Notwithstanding said real estate was restored to the claimants' decedent as afore- 
said, the said military forces of the United States continued to occupy said real estate 
until about June 1, 1865, and for the period from December 15, 1863, to June 1, 1864, 
the claimants' decedent was paid at the rate of $500 a month, leaving one year during 
which time the real estate was so used and occupied for which no payment was made. 
The reasonable rental for said real estate during such period, to wit, from June 1, 1864, 
to June 1, 1865, was $500 a month, or $6,000 (six thousand dollars) for the year, inclu- 
sive of any damage to said real estate by reason of said use and occupation. 

III. It is not shown that this claim or any part thereof was ever presented to any 
Department of the Government prior to its presentation to the Senate by bill, which 
was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate March 4, 1900, 
under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

CHARLTON B. TUCKER, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9554. Charlton B. Tucker, administrator J. W. Tucker, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate dated February 15, 1897, under the provisions of 
the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1902. 
Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Robert 
Chisolm, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Lafourche Parish, State of 
Louisiana, where decedent resided before the late war of the rebellion; that at differ- 
ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from 
said decedent's estate and the estate of his wife, M. E. Gaudi, in community, quarter- 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 8 



114 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

master stores and commissary supplies of the value of $344,350 and appropriated the 
same to the use of the United States Army. 

900 hogsheads sugar, 1,200 pounds each, at 12£ cents per pound $135, 000 

3,000 barrels molasses, at $45 per barrel 135, 000 

8,000 barrels corn '. 8, 000 

200 work mules, at $200 each 40, 000 

100 unbroken mules, at $150 15, 000 

35 brood mares, at $150 5, 250 

16 carts, at $100 1, 600 

4 wagons, at $150 each 600 

60 double plows 900 

400 wagonloads pea-vine hay ■. 3, 000 



344, 350 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the argument of counsel on 
both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The plantation in Lafourche Parish, State of Louisiana, from which the property 
claimed for in this case was taken, contained about 3,000 acres, of which 1,500 were 
cultivated, and was owned in 1853 and prior thereto by J. W. Tucker and his wife, 
Marcelline, in community, each owning one-half. In 1853 the said J. W. Tucker 
died intestate, leaving surviving him his said widow, Marcelline, and six children, 
namely: Joseph P. Tucker, Henrietta Tucker, Laura E. Tucker, Mary L. Tucker, 
William P. Tucker, and Charlton B. Tucker. Thereafter, and before the beginning 
of the late civil war his said widow, Marcelline, intermarried with Caleb Tucker, and 
by him they had one child, a daughter, Louisa, who was born in 1858. The said 
Marcelline, mother of said children, died prior to the beginning of the civil war, 
leaving surviving her said children, who were aged in 1861, respectively, Joseph P., 
25; Henrietta, 21; Laura E., 19; Mary L., 17; William P., 15; Charlton B., 13, and 
Louisa, 3 years of age. 

The evidence does not satisfy the court that any of said children were loyal to the 
United States throughout the said war except Charlton B. and Louisa, whose loyalty 
rests entirely upon their tender age. 

II. There was taken from the said plantation during the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion by the military authorities for the use of the Army stores and sup- 
plies of the kind and character mentioned in the petition, then reasonably worth the 
sum of sixty -three thousand three hundred and thirty dollars ($63,330), of which 
the interest of said Charlton B. Tucker (by inheritance from his father and mother) 
is two-thirteenths, or nine thousand seven hundred and forty-three dollars ($9,743), 
and said Louisa Tucker Le Forte (by inheritance from her mother alone) is one- 
thirteenth, or four thousand eight hundred and seventy-one dollars ($4,871), making 
in all to said two children the sum of fourteen thousand six hundred and fourteen dol- 
lars ($14,614). 

III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims under the act 3d 
March, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 15th June, 
1878 (20 Stat. L., p. 550, sec. 4). Under the act 3d March, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, 
sec. 14), which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a 
claim the court shall report whether there are "any facts bearing upon the question 
whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal rem- 
edy," the claimant has proved that Louisa Tucker-Le Forte during the period allowed 
for riling claims before the Southern Claims Commission was a minor, and that the 
claim was placed by other heirs in the hands of an attorney as early as 1870, and that 
thereafter all the papers in the possession of the heirs relating to the claim were de- 
stroyed by fire. 

Ap to the question whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse 
the claimant the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the 
judgment and discretion of Congress. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 2, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 115 

HENRY J. BROWN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11429. Henry J. Brown, administrator of estate of Elmyra 
Brown, deceased, and Henry J. Brown, Sarah Bushnell, Rosa Brown Meeker Brown, Jennie May 
Brown, Elmyra Jones, William Brown, Bertha Brown, May Brown, and Esther Brown, heirs of 
William R. Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

In the Fifty-eighth Congress Senate bill No. 3817 was introduced for relief of the 
estates of W. R. Brown and Mrs. Elmyra Brown, deceased, said bill reading as 
follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estates of W. R. Brown and Mrs. Elmyra Brown, deceased. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 
not otherwise appropriated, to the estates of W. R. Brown and Mrs. Elmyra Brown, 
deceased, late of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one hundred and eight 
thousand nine hundred and thirty-four dollars and seventy-five cents, in full com- 
pensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces 
during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to this court on April 26, 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 17th day of January, 1907, on loyalty and 
merits. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Franklin 
W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the parish of Rapides, 
State of Louisiana; that claimant, Henry J. Brown, appears as the duly appointed, 
qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of his deceased mother, Elmyra 
Brown, and also in his own right; that during the late civil war, and until his death 
early in 1863, William R. Brown lived on his plantation in the then parish of Avoy- 
elles, State of Louisiana, with his wife, Elmyra Brown, and various children; that 
at his death said William R. Brown left surviving him his widow, said Elmyra Brown, 
and five children, as follows, to wit: William A. Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah 
Bushnell, nee Brown, Lindsay L. Brown, Talton E. Brown. 

That said William R. Brown died intestate, his estate thereupon becoming vested in 
his said widow and five children, their relative interests in said estate being as follows: 
Mrs. Elmyra Brown, widow, five-tenths; William A. Brown, one-tenth; Henry J. 
Brown, one-tenth; Sarah Bushnell, one-tenth; Lindsay L. Brown, one-tenth; Talton 
E. Brown., one-tenth. 

That during said civil war, and while title to said estate was vested as above set 
forth, the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, did take from 
said widow and children of said William R. Brown for use of the Army quarter- 
master stores and commissary supplies as follows, to wit: 

48 mules, at $150 each $7,200 

42 horses, at $150 each 6, 300 

16 large oxen, at $30 each 480 

100 hogs, at $8 each 800 

21,300 bushels shelled corn, at 75 cents per bushel 15, 975 

100 cords rails for fuel, at $3 per cord 300 

18 tons fodder, at $20 per ton 360 

100 sheep, at $3 each 300 

20,000 pounds cured bacon, at 25 cents per pound 5, 000 

Total 36, 815 

That subsequent to the taking of said property as aforesaid said Mrs. Elmyra Brown, 
widow of William R. Brown, died, said petitioner, Henry J. Brown, being the admin- 
istrator of her estate; that also subsequent to the taking of said property as aforesaid 
said William A. Brown, son of said William R. Brown, died intestate and unmarried, 
his interest thereupon becoming vested in his brothers and sisters above named, each 
of said other four children being thereafter the owner of an undivided one-eighth 
interest in said estate; 

That since the war said Lindsay L. Brown died intestate, leaving surving him three 
children, as follows: Rosa Brown, Meeker Brown, Jennie May Brown, children of 
Lindsay L. Brown; 



116 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That also since said war said Talton E. Brown died intestate, leaving surviving him 
five children, as follows: Mrs. Elmyra Jones, nee Brown, William Brown, Bertha 
Brown, May Brown, Esther Brown, children of Talton E. Brown; 

That the different and respective interests of the petitioners in this claim now pre- 
sented are as follows: 

Henry J. Brown, as administrator of estate of Elmyra Brown, deceased, one- 
half, or $18, 407 

Henry J. Brown, in his own right, one-eighth, or 4, 602 

Sarah Bushnell, one-eighth, or 4, 602 

Rosa Brown, one twenty-fourth, or 1, 534 

Meeker Brown, one twenty-fourth, or 1, 534 

Jennie May Brown, one twenty-fourth, or 1, 534 

Elmyra Jones, one-fortieth, or 920 

William Brown, one-fortieth, or : 920 

Bertha Brown, one-fortieth, or 920 

May Brown, one-fortieth, or 920 

Esther Brown, one-fortieth, or 920 

That this claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission, established 
by the act approved March 3, 1871, during the two years allowed for filing of claims 
before said commission; that during said period of two years said Lindsay L. Brown 
and said Talton E. Brown were minors, and prior to the establishment of said com- 
mission said Mrs. Elmyra Brown had departed this life, no administrator having 
been appointed for her estate until 1904; that this claim was first presented to Con- 
gress in 1900, and bills were introduced in the Fifty-sixth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty- 
eighth Congresses. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. During the late civil war, to wit, in the spring of 1863, William R. Brown, a 
citizen of the United States, residing in the parish of Avoyelles, La., departed thiB 
life intestate, leaving surviving him as his heirs, his widow, Mrs. Elmyra Brown, 
and five children, below named in the order of their ages: William Allison Brown, 
Henry J. Brown, Sarah Brown (now Mrs. Bushnell), Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton 
E. Brown. 

During the said war it appears that Elmyra J. Brown, of whom Henry J. Brown 
is administrator, was not loyal to the Government of the United States. It further 
appears that Henry J. Brown and William Allison Brown, aforesaid, were not loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

It does appear that Sarah Bushnell, Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown 
were loyal to the Government of the United States during said war. 

II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took from said claimants quartermaster stores 
and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time 
and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of seventeen thousand two hundred 
and fifty dollars ($17,250), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. At the time of the said taking, Elmira Brown was entitled to one-half of the 
said property, or eight thousand six hundred and twent3r-five dollars ($8,625), and 
William Allison Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah Bushnell, Lindsay L. Brown, and 
Talton E. Brown were each entitled to one-tenth, or one thousand seven hundred 
and twenty-five dollars ($1,725). Said Lindsay L. Brown is now deceased, his heirs 
being Rosa Brown, Meeker Brown, and Jennie May Brown. Said Talton E. Brown 
is now deceased, his heirs being Mrs. Elmyra Jones, William Brown, Bertha Brown, 
May Brown, and Esther Brown. 

IV. This claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission during the 
time allowed for presentation of claims to said commission. During said period said 
Lindsay L. Brown and said Talton E. Brown were minors. Prior to the establish- 
ment of said commission said Mrs. Elmyra Brown had departed this life. This claim 
was first presented to Congress in 1900, and bills were introduced in the Fifty-sixth, 
Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. 

By the Couet. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 117 

MAINE. 
EDWARD W. LARRABEE, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10877. Edward W. Larrabee, administrator of 
Stephen Larrabee, deceased, and Charles H. Greenleaf, administrator of Amos L. Allen, 
deceased, v. the United States.] 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 17th day of June, 1902, by- 
resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to Amos L. Allen, 
surviving partner of Larrabee and Allen, of Bath, Maine, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of eleven thousand seven 
hundred and eight dollars and ninety-seven cents, in full payment and dis- 
charge of the claim of the said Larrabee and Allen for work done and material 
furnished in the construction of the United States double-ender gunboat Iosco, 
as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board, Sen- 
ate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth 
Congress." 

Under the foregoing reference the claimants filed their petition in this court, 
in which it is averred in substance that they are citizens of the United States, 
residing in Bath, Me., and that they are the duly appointed tadministrators of 
Stephen Larrabee and Amos L. Allen, the original claimants. 

That said Allen and Larrabee gave no aid to the rebellion, but were at all 
times loyal to the Government of the United States ; that on September 9, 1862, 
they contracted with the Navy Department to build the hull of the wooden 
double-ender Iosco, and received the contract price after the completion of the 
vessel, $75,000; the delivery of the hull to the engine builders was March 23, 
1863, and the final completion in March, 1S64, three hundred and ten days after 
the time fixed in the contract for the work of completion. 

During the construction, and thereafter, at the request of the officers in 
charge, contractors rendered additional services in making alterations and 
additions to the hull. 

By reason of such delays in making alterations and additions the contractors 
did not finish the vessel within the contract time and lost a profit of $10,000, 
and it cost the contractors $13,787 more than they ever got for it. On account 
of extra work the contractors received in 1864 from the United States $4,535.84, 
and for towing the vessel $500 more. 

The board of naval officers found, December 23, 1S65, that the excess of cost 
of the hull above such allowances and contract price was $11,70S.97, and the 
loss to the contractors by reason of the delavs and changes ordered by the 
United States was $23,787. 

The contractors were not guilty of laches, as they presented their claim in 
1865. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
April, 1906. 

John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant John Q. 
Thompson, esq., and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Edward W. Larrabee, administrator of Stephen Larrabee, deceased, and 
Charles H. Greenleaf, administrator of Amos L. Allen, deceased, are citizens of 
the United States residing in the city of Bath, State of Maine. 

II. Amos L. Allen, named in the bill above set forth as surviving partner of 
Larrabee & Alleu, died, and on the 4th day of November, 1904, Charles H. Green- 
leaf was appointed administrator of his estate. 

Amos L. Allen and Stephen Larrabee resided at Bath, Me., throughout the 
years 1861 to 1865, inclusive, and gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion. 
The claimants and the decedents were at all times loyal to the Government of 
the United States. 



118 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The said Amos L. Allen and Stephen Larrabee, partners doing business 
under the firm name and style of Larrabee & Allen, on the 9th day of Septem- 
ber, 1862, entered into a contract with the Navy Department to build the hull 
of the wooden double-ender Iosco within one hundred and twenty-six days from 
the date of the contract. The contractors performed their contract by so far 
completing the vessel as to have the same ready for the installation of its ma- 
chinery, which was to be supplied by independent contractors, by delivering the 
hull of said vessel to the Globe Iron Works at South Boston, on March 24, 1863, 
which was two months after the date fixed by the contract for such delivery. 

It required the Globe Iron Works three hundred and forty-six days to install 
the machinery of the Iosco, and its work was not completed until March 5, 
1864. Thereafter the vessel was finally completed by the said firm of Larrabee 
& Allen on March 17, 1864. 

IV. During the construction of the hull of said vessel there were alterations 
and additions ordered by the Navy Department for which the contractors were 
paid the sum of $4,535.84, in addition to the full contract price of $75,000, and 
the further sum of $500 for towage of the vessel, making a total pavment to 
said contractors of $80,035.84. 

V. Shortly after the rendition of such services the claimant presented bills to 
the Navy Department for such extra services and materials. These bills not 
having been acted upon by the Navy Department and having been allowed only 
in part, to the extent of $4,535.84, claimant, with other contractors of naval 
vessels, presented his claim to the Congress of the United States. On March 
9, 1865, the Senate of the United States passed the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board 
of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into 
and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for 
by the Department in the years of 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and 
above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to 
the Senate next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the 
Department to be considered." 

The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore 
Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldredge, commonly known 
as the " Selfridge Board." 

VI. The claims of the contractors were transmitted to the Selfridge Board, 
and Amos L. Allen appeared before the said board and testified in person as to 
the services which he had rendered, the authority by which the changes and 
alterations were made, the value of the same, etc., and exhibited to said board 
bills of costs and expenses. 

VII. The Selfridge Board convened at the navy-yard, New York, June 5, 1865, 
and continued their investigation of claims without intermission, hearing testi- 
mony and examining contractors and claims, until December 23, 1865, and 
shortly thereafter submitted their report to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom 
it was transmitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. 

VIII. The total amount of the bills submitted to the Selfridge Board by the 
claimant placed the entire cost of the vessel Iosco at $91,845.91. In addition to 
the contract price of $75,000 the contractors had been paid by the Bureau for 
extra work $4,535.84, and $500 for towing the vessel to South Boston, as pro- 
yided for by the contract, and the board found the cost to the contractor of the 
vessel over and above the contract price and extra bills paid was $11,708.97. 

IX. No evidence satisfactory to the court has been adduced to impeach the 
report or conclusions of the Selfridge Board, as above set forth, by either party 
to this case. 

X. After deducting the allowance and payment for extra work, the difference 
between the contract price and the cost of the vessel to the contractors is eleven 
thousand seven hundred and eight dollars and ninety-seven cents ($11,708.97). 

By the Court. 
Filed May 28, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this Sth day of June, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 119 

MARYLAND. 
EDWARD ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[In the Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 11164. Edward 
Anderson, administrator of Mary Anderson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This claim was presented to the Senate of the United States by the bill 
S. 4497, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, and on March 4, 1903, by resolu- 
tion the Senate referred the bill to this court for proceedings in pursuance of 
the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against 
the Government of the United States,'' approved March 3. 18S7. The bill is 
as follows : 

"A BILL for the relief of the heirs of Mary Anderson. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the administrator of 
the estate of Mary Anderson, deceased, out of any moneys in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, the sum of forty-four thousand one hundred and 
eighty-seven dollars, for the use and occupancy of a certain tract of land known 
as Minor's Hill plantation, situate in the counties of Fairfax and Alexandria, 
in the State of Virgina, and for timber and rails taken therefrom and 
appropriated to the use of the United States Government by the Union Army 
during the war of eighteen hundred and sixty -one and eighteen hundred and 
sixty-five." 

Thereupon Edward Anderson, one of said heirs, in his capacity of admin- 
istrator of the personal estate of said Mary Anderson, appeared herein and 
was allowed, upon his motion, to prosecute the claim. 

Thereupon the claimant, as such administrator, filed herein his petition 
and afterwards his amended petition, the material averments of which are in 
effect as follows : 

That claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of 
Maryland. 

That Col. George Minor was at and for many years before the time of his 
death, which occurred on or about the 1st day of June. 1862, The owner of a 
tract of land or farm containing 326.56 acres, known as " Minor's Hill planta- 
tion," and situated in the counties of Alexandria and Fairfax, in the State of 
Virginia. 

That in the fall of the year 1S61 troops of the United States entered upon 
and took entire and exclusive possession of said farm, and thereafter continued 
in such possession without interruption for the space of four years, ending in 
the fall of 1865. 

That said troops while in such possession greatly damaged and practically 
destroyed the dwelling house and outbuildings on the farm and cut all the 
timber and consumed the same, together with all the fencing on the farm, so 
that when the troops abandoned their occupation of the farm it was prac- 
tically denuded of all timber and fencing. 

That at the commencement of such occupation by said troops 65 acres of the 
farm were in cultivation, and the remainder, 261 § acres, covered with a heavy 
first growth of valuable standing timber; that S7 acres of said timber land 
contained 431 cords of pine per acre, and the other 175 acres contained 60 
cords per acre of hard wood ; that the value of said timber then in the tree 
was, for the pine, $3.25 per cord, and for the hard wood. $4 per cord ; that the 
rental value of the dwelling house and outbuildings for ordinary purposes was 
not less than $100 per annum, and that the damage thereto amounted to $1,600. 

That, upon the death of Colonel Minor, the said Mary Anderson, claimant's 
intestate, became sole owner of said farm and was the owner of all the timber 
and fencing so taken by the troops excepting only 32 acres of the pine timber 
taken by the troops before Colonel Minor died; that she died on the 15th day 
of September, 1865, and was at all times during the late war of the rebellion 
loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That during the year 1S65 the claim was filed with the Quartermaster- 
General, United States Army, but he took no action thereon, and no record of 
the claim is found in his office; that active prosecution of the claim was sus- 
pended from 1S65 until 1875 pending a contest against Colonel Minor's will 
devising the farm to said Mary Anderson. Thereafter, in 1S75. her heirs 
employed an attorney to present the claim to Congress, and from time to time 
bills were introduced in Congress for the payment of the claim : that two 



120 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

attorneys successively employed by the heirs in the premises died, and there- 
upon the heirs employed their present attorney ; that several sets of papers with 
affidavits setting forth the claim were prepared and lost or mislaid, some of 
them being lost or mislaid after being filed before Congress. 

That the claim has never been rejected or otherwise acted upon adversely 
and has not been paid or assigned in whole or in part. 

The claim as itemized in the amended petition is as follows : 

46,098 rails, at $60 per thousand $2, 765. 88 

2,396f cords of pine timber, at $3.25 per cord, in tree 7, 788. 39 

10,500 cords of hard -wood timber, at $4 per cord, in the tree 42, 000. 00 

Use and occupation of property, including also damage to buildings, 

from June 1, 1862, to September 15, 1865 1, S29. 00 

Total 54, 3S3. 27 

December 12, 1904, in this court the case was submitted upon the issue of 
loyalty and on the merits, without oral argument, upon stipulation. 

The claimant appeared by his attorney, Mr. Lorenzo A. Bailey, and the 
Attorney-General being represented by Mr. W. W. Scott, assistant attorney. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Mrs. Mary Anderson, was a resident' within the 
State of Maryland during the period of the civil war and loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States. 

It has not been proved to the satisfaction of the court that Col. George 
Minor, hereinafter referred to, as a loyal citizen of the United States. 

II. At the beginning of the civil war, and for a long time prior thereto, Col. 
George Minor was the owner of a farm situated in Alexandria and Fairfax 
counties, Va., about 5 miles from the city of Washington, D. C, and known 
as " Minor's Hill plantation," consisting of 365 acres, 65 acres of hich were 
cultivated and 300 of which were covered with timber. 

In the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States took possession of 
such farm and occupied it, together with the buildings thereon. The fences 
upon such farm were used as fuel, and the troops also cut, during the period of 
the civil war, all of the timber on the place, some being used to build quarters 
for the soldiers, but the greater part being consumed on the place. \Such use 
and occupation continued during the war. 

The buildings on the farm were also occupied by the troops, and at the close 
of the war all the buildings, except the dwelling house, had been removed or 
destroyed, and the farm had been injured and its value impaired by reason of 
the occupancy. 

III. On the 1st of June, 1862, Colonel Minor died, devising all of this property 
by will to his daughter, Mrs. Mary Anderson. 

The court finds that a portion of the timber was cut and used by the troops 
prior to the death of Colonel Minor and the remainder after Mrs. Anderson 
became owner of the premises, and that the value of the timber so cut and taken 
belonging to Mrs. Anderson was ($7,150) seven thousand one hundred and fifty 
dollars. 

The court also finds that the use and occupation of the dwelling house and 
other buildings, as aforesaid, was reasonably worth three hundred dollars 
($300). 

The court also finds that the injury to the farm for agricultural purposes in- 
cidental to the use and occupation by the troops, including the loss and destruc- 
tion of the barns and farm buildings other than the dwelling, was reasonably 
worth the sum of ($700) seven hundred dollars. 

The court makes no allowance for property taken or for use and occupation 
or injury to the premises prior to the time when Mrs. Mary Anderson became 
the owner of the premises, to wit, June 1, 1862. 

IV. The claim was presented by Mrs. Anderson to the Quartermaster-General 
in 1S65, but was not acted upon by him ; and there is no evidence bearing upon 
the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim 
to the Southern Claims Commission further than that she was prevented from 
so doing by litigation involving the validity of the will of her father, by which 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 121 

she acquired title, and such litigation not having been determined in her favor 
until 1875. She presented the claim by petition to Congress at various times 
until it was finally referred to this court. 

By the Cotjrt. 
Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ELIZABETH V. BELT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ALFRED C. BELT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11567. Elizabeth V. Belt, administratrix of the 
estate of Alfred C. Belt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 
I 

This is a claim for rent and for stores and supplies alleged to have been 
furnished to or taken by the military forces of the United States for the Army 
during the late civil war. 

On May 6, 1904, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court 
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, a bill, of which the following 
is a copy: 

" [S. 43, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
" A BILL For the relief of Miss L. V. Belt, administratrix of Alfred C. Belt, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Miss L. V. Belt, administratrix of her 
father, Alfred C. Belt, deceased, ten thousand six hundred and eighty-four 
dollars, for claim originating in Montgomery County, Maryland, for supplies 
and stores and rent of land occupied by the military forces of the United States, 
the supplies and stores being taken for their use and not paid for ; the said sum 
being in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full 
and final discharge of said claim." 

The claimant appeared in this court and filed her petition, in which she 
makes the following allegations : 

That she is the administratrix of the estate of Alfred C. Belt, deceased, who 
resided in Loudoun County, Va., during the late civil war; that her decedent 
rented and was in possession of and cultivated Harrisons Island, in the Potomac 
River, Montgomery County, Md., during said war ; that during said war the 
military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, took posses- 
sion of the island, and took therefrom stores and supplies as hereinafter set 
forth; that the claim now presented is for rent and for stores and supplies as 
follows : 

14 horses, at $150 $2,100 

500 bushels of wheat and the straw ricks, at $2.50 per bushel 1, 250 

300 bushels oats, at 75 cents bushel 225 

20 tons timothy hay, at $30 600 

500 barrels corn, at $4 2, 000 

For rent of Harrisons Island, two years (470 acres, worth $80 per acre, 
or $37,600, at 6 per cent per annum), the buildings all being occupied 

and the house used for hospital 4, 509 

Total 10,684 

That the above claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General in Novem- 
ber, 1874, by her decedent, but that the same was disallowed by that officer on 
the ground that he was not satisfied that the claim was just. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 31st day of 
January, 1907. 

Raleigh Sherman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



122 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Alfred C. Belt, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, took from the farm of claimant's 
decedent on Harrisons Island, in the Potomac River, Montgomery County, Md., 
property of the kind and character described in the petition, and used the 
house situate thereon for hospital purposes for a period of about two years. 
The reasonable value of the property so taken, together with the rental value of 
the land and buildings described in the petition, was the sum of twenty-nine 
hundred and seventy dollars ($2,970), no portion of which appears to have 
been made. 

III. A' claim for the property herein was presented to the Quartermaster- 
General in November, l'S74, but by that officer disallowed because he was 
unable to certify that he was convinced of the loyalty of the claimant's 
decedent or that the claim was just. 

By the Cotjbt. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHRIST REFORMED CONGREGATION OF MIDDLETOWN, MD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11627. Trustees of the Christ Reformed 
Congregation of Middletown, Md., successors to the German Reformed Church of Mid- 
dletown, Md., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On February 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, Senate bill 
865 was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of section 
14 of the act approved March 3, 1S87, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, 
said bill reading as follows, to wit : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the German Reformed Church of Middletown, 

Maryland. 

" Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, Tbat the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the German Reformed 
Church of Middletown, Maryland, the sum of eight hundred and ten dollars, 
for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United 
States during tbe late war of the rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 26th day 
of April, A. D. 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of tbe interests of the United States. 

The trustees of claimant church in their petition make the following alle- 
gations, to wit : 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Frederick, State of Maryland, and are the trustees of the Christ Reformed 
Congregation of that place, said organization being the successor of the Ger- 
man Reformed Church of said place, being the' same body under a different 
name; tbat during the late civil war said German Reformed Church was the 
owner of certain real estate in Middletown, Md., on which was situated a 
large, substantial brick building having a seating capacity of from 600 to 700 
persons ; that said building was well fitted for purposes of worship, with pulpit 
and pews, and was well frescoed : that upon said real estate was also a sub- 
stantial brick building used as a place for holding Sunday school and for 
other purposes incident to the church; tbat in 1862 said church building was 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 123 

reasonably worth $15,000, and said other building was reasonably worth at 
least $1,800; tbat in the fall of 1862 both of said buildings were used and occu- 
pied by the United States military forces for hospital purposes for a consid- 
erable period, such occupation of the church building proper continuing about 
three month, and the occupation of said other building continuing for a shorter 
period ; that as an incident to said occupation of said buildings they were 
greatly damaged; that the reasonable worth or value of the occupation of said 
buildings during said period, including the injury to the chruch property proper, 
amounted to the sum of $810 ; tbat claim was presented in the sum of $810 to 
the Quartermaster-General prior to February, 1863, and was by that officer re- 
jected. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war, the German Reformed Church of Middletown, 
Md., predecessor of the Christ Reformed Congregation of Middletown, Md., 
was the owner of certain real estate in Middletown, Md., upon which were situ- 
ated a substantial brick church and also a substantial two-story brick build- 
ing used for Sunday school purposes and other purposes pertaining to the 
church. In the fall of 1S62 both of said buildings were used and occupied by 
the United States military forces for hospital purposes; said occupation of 
the church building proper continued for a period of from two to three months, 
the occupation of the other building continuing for a shorter period. The rea- 
sonable worth of the use and occupation of said buildings and of the injury 
thereto is four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

II. It appears from the evidence that the Christ Reformed Congregation of 
Middletown, Md., formerly the German Reformed Church of Middletown, Md., 
was as a church loyal to the Government of the United States during the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. 

By the Court. 
Filed May, 1, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

CORPORATION OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, HANCOCK, MD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13043. Corporation of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of Hancock, Md., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words : 

"[S. 7277, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the corporation of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Han- 
cock. Maryland. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the president of the corporation of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, of Hancock, Maryland, the sum of one thousand 
dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to 
said church by United State military forces during the civil war." 

The president of the corporation of said church appeared in this court April 
30, 1907, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church of 
Hancock, Md., and used and occupied the same for camping and other military 
purposes for a long period during the civil war ; that the carpet was destroyed, 



124 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the seats taken out and destroyed, and the building generally greatly injured by 
said occupation ; that the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said 
property, during said period, including the repairs necessary to restore said 
property to the same condition it was in before such occupation, was the sum of 
$1,000 for which no payment has been made; that the said church has at all 
times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not 
in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion 
against the Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
January, 1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
William H. Lamar, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church of Hancock, Md., as an organization was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and 
used and occupied the same as quarters, and damaged the same. The reason- 
able rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of five hundred and fifty 
dollars ($550), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is 
given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall 
be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established 
legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 190S. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CORNELIA JONES, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 443. Cornelia Jones, administratrix of John L. T. 
Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, 
finds that John L. T. Jones, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies 
or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 30, 1888. 

r 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11523. Cornelia Jones, administratrix of John 

L. T. Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, as repre- 
sented by S. 4847, second session Fifty-seventh Congress, for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court 
by resolution of the Senate (act March 3, 1887) on the 6th day of May, 1904. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 30th day of April, 1888, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 125 

were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of December, 
1905. 

P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix 
Brannigan, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is the widow and administratrix of John L. T. Jones, late of Mont- 
gomery County, Md. ; that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident 
of the State of Maryland ; that she has a claim against the United States for 
supplies and stores taken from her said husband in Montgomery County, Md., 
by the military forces of the United States for army use ; that heretofore she 
presented her said claim on March 6, 18S6, against the United States before the 
Court of Claims, Congressional, No. 443, in substance as follows : 

That her husband, John L. T. Jones, during his lifetime filed his claim before 
the Quartermaster-General,. U. S. Army^ for 10 stacks of wheat, being 800 
bushels at $2.50 per bushel, being $2,000, with such vouchers, papers, and proofs 
as he had to offer in support of his said claim, said wheat having been taken 
by and used for the benefit of the Army of the United States for forage during 
the war of 1861, from Oxleys Island, in the Potomac River, in Montgomery 
County, Md. 

The Quartermaster-General disallowed and rejected said claim. The Court 
of Claims, upon consideration of her said petition, found that her said husband 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war, and, 
further, "that in the year 1861 the military forces of the United States took for 
their use from said decedent 800 bushels of wheat ; that the same was used for 
forage by the Army; that it was taken from Oxleys Island, in the Potomac 
River, in the county of Montgomery, and that the same was worth, at the time 
of taking, the sum of $2.50 per bushel." 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following findings of fact : 

"The court is unable from all the proofs and circumstances of the case to 
determine that the stores and supplies, as alleged in petition, were taken by the 
Army of the United States for use of the United States, and the petition is 
accordingly dismissed." 

Whereupon your petitioner petitioned Congress, setting forth the facts as 
found by the court and the action thereon, and Congress referred the claim to 
the court to find the facts, and the claim now becomes Congressional, No. 11528, 
for the sum of $2,000, which is justly due and has not been paid. 

That John L. T. Jones, her husband, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion, as the court 
found in the former trial. 

The court, upon the evidence, after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following (No. 11523) 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There was taken from the claimant's decedent, John L. T. Jones, in Mont- 
gomery County, State of Maryland, during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, 
property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there 
reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and forty dollars ($240). No pay- 
ment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 11, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



126 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

LA GRANGE LODGE, NO. 36, I. O. O. F., BOONSBORO, MD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11626. La Grange Lodge No. 36, I. O. O. F., of 
Boonsboro, Md., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a lodge building by the military forces 
of tbe United States during the late civil war. On the 27th day of April, 1904, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : 

" [S. 864, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of La Grange Lodge, numbered thirty-sixth, Independent Order 
of Odd Fellows, of Boonsboro, Maryland. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That tbe Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to La Grange Lodge, numbered thirty- 
six, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Boonsboro, Maryland, the sum of 
four hundred and fifty dollars, for use of and damage to lodge property by the 
military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The claimants appeared in this court of the 29th day of January, 1907, and 
filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
September 15, 1SG2, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the lodge building of La Grange Lodge, No. 36, Independent 
Order of Odd Fellows, of Boonsboro, Md., and used and occupied the same for 
hospital purposes for a period of about six months. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so 
occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition 
in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the 
sum of $450, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of 
January, 190S. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The La Grange Lodge, No. 36, I. O. O. F., of Boonsboro, Md., as an organiza- 
tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil 
war. 

II. During said period the miltary forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the lodge building de- 
scribed in the petition and used the same for hospital purposes and damaged 
the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, together with the damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of three hundred 
and seventy dollars ($370), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-General in May, 
1873, and by that officer disallowed in 1875 for lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter 
the same was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as 
hereinbefore set forth. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of January, 1908. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 127 

S. SOLLERS MAYNARD, EXECUTOR. 

r Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11520. S. Sollers Maynard, executor of Augustine D. 
O'Leary, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for stores and supplies, rent, and occupation, alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 26th day of April, 1904, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : 
"[S. 2100, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

" A BILL For the relief of S. Sollers Maynard, executor of Augustine D. O'Leary, 

deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United- 
States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized aud directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to S. Sollers Maynard, executor of 
Augustine D. O'Leary, deceased, late of Frederick County, Maryland, or to his 
legal representative, eighteen thousand dollars, tbe same being in full for and 
the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full and final release and 
discharge of said claim." 

The claimant appeared in this court April 25, 1906, and filed his petition, in 
which it is substantially averred — 

That AugustineD. O'Leary, deceased, was a citizen of Frederick County, Md., 
and during the war for the suppression of the rebellion was loyal to the United 
States ; that United States troops during said period took possession of the fol- 
lowing property : 

Four hundred and fifteen panels of plank fence, 6 feet high $1,245 

Two hundred and forty panels post and rail fence 240 

Rent of 12-room brick house and outbuildings, two and one-half years__ 1, 400 
Occupation, rent, use, and pasturage 25 acres of land for two and one- 
half years 10, 200 

Two tons timothy hay, at $20 40 

Total 13, 125 

that the use and occupation of the property began in September, 1862, by 
military troops under Generals Sumner and McClellan and continued until the 
close of the war. 

The case was argued and submitted on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of 
January, 1907. 

Raleigh Sherman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following - 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Augustine D. O'Leary, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from 
the claimant's decedent in Frederick County, State of Maryland, by the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, prop- 
erty of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and 
place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of fourteen hundred and fifty 
dollars ($1,450), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was filed before the Quartermaster-General July 25, 
1873, and by the officer disallowed because of inability " to certify that the 
stores charged for were taken and converted to the legitimate use of the United 
States." 

Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by resolution of the United 
States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, and hereinbefore mentioned. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of January, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



128 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, BURKITTS- 

VILLE, MD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13040. Trustees of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church of Burkittsville, Md., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the 
miliary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words: 

" [S. 7274, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] . 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Burkitts- 
ville, Md. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of tbe Evangelical Lu- 
theran Church of Burkittsville, Md., the sum of one thousand dollars, in full 
compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by 
United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and 
filed a petition in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States took posses- 
sion of the church building of these claimants, consisting of a fine, large, well- 
constructed brick structure, and occupied the same as a hospital from the time 
of the battle of South Mountain, Maryland, in September, 1862, until about May 
or June, 1863, and thereby greatly injured the property; that reasonable rental 
value of the use and occupation and incidental injury to said property while so 
occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the property to as good con- 
dition as before said occupation, was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment 
has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the 
Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, 
abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
January, 1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Burkittsville, Md., as an organiza- 
tion was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late 
civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and 
used and occupied the same as a hospital, and damaged the same. The reason- 
able rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages thereto 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hun 
dred and twenty-five dollars ($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- 
lution of the United States, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why 
the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 129 

TRUSTEES OB' THE UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH OF BOONSBORO, MD. 

[.Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11625. Trustees of the United Brethren Church of 
Boonsboro, Md., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, 

Maryland. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the United Brethren 
Church of Boonsboro, Maryland, the sum of three hundred dollars, for use of 
and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court September 19, 1905, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
September 15, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took possession of the church building of the United Brethren Church at 
Boonsboro, Md., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a 
period of about three months. That the reasonable rental value of said building 
during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession, was the sum of $300, for which no payment has been 
made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 28th day of 
January, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., as a church was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property 
belonging to the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., and used and 
occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about three months. 
The reasonable rental value for such period, together with the damages in 
excess of the ordinary wear and tear incident thereto, was then and there the 
sum of one hundred and seventy dollars ($170.00), no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was filed before the Quartermaster-General and by him 
disallowed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on April 27, 1904, the claim 
was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as herein- 
before mentioned. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 9 



130 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF FREDERICK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF FRED- 
ERICK, MD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13073. Trustees of the Frederick Presbyterian 
Church, of Frederick, Md., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the the 2d day 
of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the fol- 
lowing words: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Frederick Presbyterian Church, of Fred- 
erick, Maryland. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Frederick Presby- 
terian Church, of Frederick, Maryland, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full 
compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by 
United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and 
filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States 
took possession of the building and grounds of the Frederick Presbyterian 
Church, of Frederick, Md., and occupied said church as a hospital after the 
battle of South Mountain, in September, 1862, for a considerable period of time 
and greatly injured the same by said occupation; that the reasonable rental 
value of said property during such occupation was the sum of $900, for which 
no payment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true alle- 
giance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way volun- 
tarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said 
Government. 

. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of 
February, 190S. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The courts upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Frederick, Md., as an organization was loyal 
to the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and 
used and occupied the same for four months, and while so occupied damaged 
the same, for which claimant was paid $359.32. The reasonable rental value 
of said building during said period, exclusive of the damage so paid, was at 
the time and place about two hundred dollars ($200), for which latter amount 
no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim herein for rent was never presented to any department of the 
Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court 
by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the 
statement of the case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the 
claim was not earlier presented. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 17, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 13] 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

GEORGE T. SAMPSON, SURVIVOR OF FIRM OF GEORGE T. SAMPSON 
AND AUGUSTUS SAMPSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10889. (Decided May 6, 1907.) George T. 
Sampson, as surviving partner of the firm of George T. Sampson & Augustus 
Sampson.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for work done and material alleged to have been furnished 
in the construction of the hull of the United States double-ender Mattabessett. 

On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the 
court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1S87, known as the Tucker 
Act, a bill reading as follows : 

" [S. 703, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL for the relief of George T. Sampson. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to George T. 
Sampson, surviving partner of the firm of A. and G. T. Sampson, of Boston, 
Massachusetts, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
the sum of four thousand and fifteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, in full pay- 
ment and discharge of the claim of said A. and G. T. Sampson for work done and 
material furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States double- 
ender ' Mattabessett,' as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and 
president of board (Senate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first 
session of the Thirty-ninth Congress)." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 25th day 
of April, 1905, in which he avers as follows : That he is a citizen of the United 
States, residing in the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts. That Augustus 
Sampson, who was associated with him in business from the year 1862 to 1S75, 
died about the year 1894. That they resided at Boston, Mass., throughout the 
years 1S61 to 1865 and gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion and were at 
all times loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That petitioner and said Augustus Sampson, since deceased, entered into a 
contract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1S62, to build and 
equip the hull of a paddle-wheel gunboat known as a wooden double-ender, 
subsequently called the Mattabessett, and that they performed their contract 
by completing the vessel, and the defendants, by their proper officers, paid to 
them the contract price, $75,000. By the contract she was to be launched Janu- 
ary 13, 1863, but she was not launched until about six weeks later. The agree- 
ment allowed fifty days more for completing the vessel, but instead of being 
completed March 4, 1863, she was not finished until January IS, 1864. 

That at the outset there was delay by the United States in furnishing the 
drawings, which on their arrival showed changes. Alterations and changes 
were ordered by the Government and performed by the contractors. These 
orders for such alterations and changes were made from time to time from 
the beginning until the end of the work. Many changes were ordered after 
the vessel had been delivered by the contractors at the premises of the con- 
tractor for the machinery, which were more than 200 miles from the shipyard 
of your petitioner, where the hull had been built. These alterations were ex- 
pensive to the contractors over and above their direct cost, because they de- 
layed the completion of the work beyond the contract term into a period when 
prices of labor and material were higher and because of the cost of the 
insurance, personal attendance, and other running expenses. 

That the contractors built this ship as quickly as they could and as economic- 
ally as possible. By reason of the changes and delays of the Government the 
cost to the contractors was increased $19,703.24, exclusive of loss of $1,174.25 
by reason of delay in payments. Petitioner has received $500 because of the 
nondelivery at the Boston Harbor and $3,723.70 for extras. 

The only ascertainment of how much the hull of the Mattabessett cost the 
contractors over and above the allowance for extra work and the contract 
price was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the Secretary of 
the Navy on the 25th of May, 1865. The loss to the contractors by reason 



132 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of the delays and changes ordered by the United States was $15,479.54 over 
and above all sums heretofore received from the United States, and exclusive 
of the loss of $1,174.25 by reason of delay in payments. 

The contractors were not guilty of laches, inasmuch as they presented their 
claim to said board on the 29th of June," 1865 ; they also presented their memo- 
rial to Congress March 16, 1864, and have been diligent in asking relief from 
Congress ever since. No assignment of this claim has ever been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
April, 1907. 

John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. George T. Sampson and his brother Augustus Sampson resided in Boston, 
Mass., and were associated in business from the year 1862 to 1875. They 
gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion, but were loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the war — from 1861 to 1865. Augustus Sampson 
died about the year 1894, and neither his estate nor his heirs are represented 
in this suit as parties claimant. 

II. The said George T. Sampson and Augustus Sampson entered into a con- 
tract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1862, to build, launch, 
deliver to the engine contractor in New York City, and thereafter complete, 
the hull of the wooden double-ender gunboat Mattabessett, for the sum of 
$75,500. Under the contract the vessel was to be launched within one hundred 
and twenty-six days from the date of the contract, or by January 13, 1863, and 
promptly thereafter delivered at the premises of the contractor for the steam 
machinery ; but the vessel was not launched until April 3, 1863, two hundred 
and six days after the date of the contract, and was not delivered to the 
machinery contractor until May 2, 1863 (reply of Navy Department, filed July 
19, 1905, pp. 13, 84, 138). The contract called for the completion of the vessel 
within fifty days after its delivery to the machinery contractor in New York, 
May 2, 1863 ; but it was not completed until eight months thereafter, the princi- 
pal cause of this delay being the delay on the part of the machinery contractor 
in completing the installation of the engines and machinery of the vessel. 

III. During the construction and equipment of the hull of said vessel by the 
contractors there were numerous alterations and additions ordered by the 
Navy Department and made by the contractors, for which the contractors, upon 
the completion of the vessel, presented a claim to the Navy Department, upon 
which claim they were allowed and paid the sum of $3,723.70, this being the 
full amount of the claim, with the exception of an item of $487 for cost of awn- 
ings for hurricane deck and an item of $1,325 for additional compensation for 
delivery of vessel at New York. This allowance and payment of $3,723.70 was 
in addition to the contract prices of $75,000 for the construction of the vessel 
and $500 for its delivery to the machinery contractor in New York, thus 
making a total payment to the contractors of $79,223.70. 

IV. In consequence of numerous contractors and builders of Government ves- 
sels during the war having asked additional compensation for the construction 
of such vessels on the ground that they had cost the contractors more than they 
had received for them, the Senate of the United States on March 9, 1865, passed 
the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board 
of not less than three competent persons whose duty it shall be to inquire into 
and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted 
for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and 
above the contract price, and the allowance for extra work, and report the same 
to the Senate at its next session, none but those who have given satisfaction to 
the Department to be considered." 

The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore 
Thomas O. Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, com- 
monly-known as the Selfridge Board; and the contractors in this case pre- 
sented to said Board a sworn statement of claims, alleging the entire cost to 
them of the said vessel, Mattabessett, to have been $83,239.08, thus claiming the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 133 

extra cost to them over and above the $79,223.70 theretofore paid them to have 
been $4,015.38. 

Upon consideration said Board decided that the vessel had cost the con- 
tractors this amount of $4,015.38 over what they had received for it, and the 
Board so reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was trans- 
mitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. 

V. No evidence has been offered by the Government to disprove the findings 
of the Selfridge Board, but some evidence has been produced by the claimant to 
confirm it. • 

VI. The contractors presented this claim to the said Selfridge Board on June 
29, 1S65, since which time no action appears from the record to have been taken 
in the prosecution of the claim until its presentation to the Fifty-seventh Con- 
gress by Senate bill No. 703, as hereinbefore set forth. 



Barney, J., delivered the opinion of the court. 

This case comes to this court under the Tucker Act by a resolution of the 
Senate. 

The bill referred is given in full in the statement of case herein, and, briefly 
stated, is a bill providing for the payment to the claimant of $4,015.38, in full 
payment and discharge of the claim of the claimant for work done and material 
furnished in the construction of the United States double-ender Mattabessett, as 
per report of what is commonly known as the Selfridge Board. 

This Board consisted of Commodore Selfridge and two other naval officers, 
and was organized pursuant to a resolution of the Senate passed March 9, 1S65. 
By the terms of said resolution it was made the duty of this Board to inquire 
into and report to the Senate how much the vessels of war and steam machin- 
ery contracted for by the Government during the years 1862 and 1S63 cost the 
contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work. 
This Board made investigations of these matters pursuant to said resolution, 
and its report is embodied in Senate Report No. 1942, Fifty-seventh Congress, 
first session. Arising from this report several cases have come before this court 
from Congress under the Tucker Act. The bills so referred have been for the 
payment of a specified sum, "as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge," or words 
of similar import, and that is the form of the bill referred in this case. 

This court, in determining the amount of damages accruing to the claimants 
in such cases, confines itself to the amount as found by said naval board. These 
bills generally, if not invariably, correspond in amount to the findings of the 
Selfridge Board. That Board was appointed and discharged its duties shortly 
after these questions arose and while all or nearly all of the witnesses to the 
whole transaction were still living and the facts were fresh in their recollection. 
After the lapse of more than forty years evidence introduced will be but a faint 
echo of what was certain at that time. The testimony produced in the case at 
bar is a good illustration of that fact, being little more than a belief in the 
verity of the evidence given before the Selfridge Board. 

We are further constrained not to go beyond the report of the Selfridge Board 
from the form of and the amount stated in the bill referred to us. It is for 
•' the sum of four thousand and fifteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, in full 
payment and discharge of the claim of said George T. Sampson for work done 
and material furnished, as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, &c." 

By the terms of the fourteenth section of the Tucker Act we are required in 
such case to report to Congress " the facts in the case, and the amount, where 
the same can be liquidated-" Now, what " case " has been referred to us to 
report upon? Evidently the case made out by the bill in question and no other. 
In this case the bill is for $4,015.3S, as per the report of the Selfridge Board, and 
we do not think we are called upon to go beyond that Board or that amount, 
especially as no evidence has been offered to impeach the finding of the Board, 
while some evidence has been produced to support it. 

Again, if a bill for a greater amount or depending upon any other report or 
state of facts had been introduced in the Senate, that branch of Congress might 
not have consented to refer it to the court, but it did consent to confer this bill 
and this case to this court, and no other. Any other view of the case would 
authorize this court to return findings for a million dollars when the bill pro- 
vided for the payment of but one thousand, thus evading the evident intention 
of the Tucker Act and making possible a fraudulent deception of Congress. 
Under the Bowman Act the provision is that " whenever a claim or matter is 
pending," it may be referred to this court, while under the Tucker Act the refer- 



134 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

ence is of a bill " providing for the payment of a claim against the United States, 
legal or equitable," which implies the payment of the sum provided for in the 
bill and no more. 

It is urgently contended by the claimant that the resolution of reference in 
this case broadens the jurisdiction of this court in making up its findings, and 
should be looked to for that purpose. We do not agree with this contention. 
This court gets its jurisdiction in this class of cases from the Tucker Act, and 
from that alone. The resolution of reference is but the vehicle by which the 
bill comes to this court and serves no other purpose; otherwise one branch of 
Congress alone would be enabled to enlarge the jurisdiction of this court. When 
the case is in this court we look to the bill referred to us, and no further, to 
determine the matter before the court for investigation and report. 

Taking this view of the case, we deem it our duty to report only upon a claim, 
as reported by the Selfridge Board, for the sum of $4,015.38. The findings and 
this opinion will accordingly be certified to Congress. 

By the Couet. 

Filed May 6, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

VELMA C. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10872. Nelson Curtis, executor of the estate of 
Paul Curtis, deceased, v. The United States.] 



It appearing that since the filing of the findings in the above-entitled cause on 
May 15, 1907, the executor, Nelson Curtis, has died, it is ordered that the claim- 
ant's motion filed March 3, 1908, to substitute Velma C. Williams as administra- 
trix be allowed, and that said Velma C. Williams be substituted as administra- 
trix in the place of said Nelson Curtis, deceased. 

By the Coukt. 

Filed March 3, 1908. 

A true copv. 

Test this 3d day of March, 190S. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

[Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 10872. Velma C. Williams, 
administratrix of Paul Curtis, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for work done and material alleged to have been furnished in 
the construction of the hull of the United States double-en der Chicopee. 

On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the 
court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1SS7, known as the Tucker 
Act, a bill reading as follows : 

"[S. 5, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the legal representatives of Paul Curtis, deceased. 

"Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to the legal repre- 
sentatives of Paul Curtis, deceased, of Massachusetts, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four thousand one hundred 
and twenty-eight dollars and thirty-nine cents, in full payment and discharge 
of the claim of said Paul Curtis for work done and material furnished in the 
construction of the hull of the United States double-ender gunboat Chicopee, 
as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board, Senate 
Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth 
Congress." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 135 

The claimant appeared and filed Ills petition in this court on the 28th day of 
April, 1905, in which he avers as follows : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of Boston, State 
of Massachusetts. That Paul Curtis, his father, died about the year 1872. . That 
they resided at Boston, Mass., throughout the years 1861 to 1S65 and gave no 
aid and comfort to the rebellion, and were at all times loyal to the Government 
of the United States. 

That the said Paul Curtis, since deceased, entered into a contract with the Navy 
Department, dated September 9, 1862, to build and equip the hull of a paddle- 
wheel gunboat, known as a wooden double-ender, subsequently called the Chico- 
pec, and that he performed his contract by completing the vessel ; and the 
defendants, by their proper officers, paid to him the contract price, $75,000. By 
the contract she was to be launched January 13, 1863, but she was not launched 
until about six weeks later. The agreement allowed fifty days more for com- 
pleting the vessel, but instead of being completed March 4, 1863, the machinery 
was not put on board until April 1, 1864. 

That at the outset there was delay by the United States in furnishing the 
drawings, which on their arrival showed changes. Alterations and changes 
were ordered by the Government and performed by the contractor. These orders 
for such alterations and changes were made from time to time from the begin- 
ning until the end of the work. Many changes were ordered after the vessel 
had been delivered by the contractor at the premises of the contractor for the 
machinery, which were more than 200 miles from the shipyard of Paul Curtis, 
where the hull had been built. These alterations were expensive to the con- 
tractor, over and above their direct cost, because they delayed the completion 
of the work beyond the contract term into a period* when prices of labor and 
material were higher and because of the cost of the insurance, personal attend- 
ance, and other running expenses. 

That the contractor built this ship as quick as he could and as economically 
as possible. By reason of the changes and delays of the Government the cost 
to the contractor was increased $19,6S5.46, exclusive of loss of $612.50 by reason 
of delay in payments. Paul Curtis received $500 because of the nondelivery at 
the Boston Harbor and $3,304.20 for extras. 

That the only ascertainment of how much the hull of the Ghicopee cost the 
contractor over and above the allowance for extra work and the contract price 
was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the Secretary of the 
Navy on the 25th of May, 1865. The loss to the contractor by reason of the 
delays and changes ordered by the United States was fifteen thousand eight 
hundred and eighty-one dollars and twenty-six cents ($15,881.26), over and 
above all sums heretofore received from the United States and exclusive of the 
loss of $612.50 by reason of delay in payments. 

That the contractor was not guilty of laches inasmuch as he presented his 
claim to said board on the 3d of August, 1865 ; he also presented his memorial 
to Congress March 16, 1864, and has been diligent ever since in asking relief 
from Congress. No assignment of this claim has ever been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of 
May, 1907. 

John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, Nelson Curtis, is the executor of the estate of Paul Curtis,, 
who died about the year 1872. Edwin Wright, who was the coexecutor under 
the will, died in the year 1899. Paul Curtis, deceased, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

II. Said Paul Curtis entered into a contract with the Navy Department Sep- 
tember 9, 1862, to build and equip the hull of a paddle-wheel gunboat, known as 
a wooden double-ender and subsequently called the Chicopee, for $75,500. He 
completed the vessel, and the defendants by their proper officers paid him the 
contract price of $75,500, together with $3,304.20 for extra work resulting from 
changes and alterations during the process of the work, making a total pay- 
ment to him of $78,S04.20. By the contract the vessel was to be launched 



136 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

January 13, 1863, one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the con- 
tract, but was not launched until March 4, 1863. The contract allowed fifty 
days more for completing the vessel, but instead of being completed March 4, 
1863, she was not finished until April 1, 1864, the principal cause of this delay 
being the delay of the machinery contractor in completing and installing the 
machinery of the vessel. 

III. Changes in the plans and specifications and alterations of work were 
ordered by the Government and performed by the contractor throughout the 
progress of the work, many changes being made after the delivery of the vessel 
in New York City, some 200 miles distant from the contractor's place of busi- 
ness, which made such work more expensive to the contractor than it would 
otherwise have been. The vessel remained in New York over a year awaiting 
completion and installation of the steam machinery before the contractor could 
finally complete the work on the hull, during which time the prices of labor and 
materials very greatly increased, thus adding to the cost of the work performed 
during the period of delay. 

IV. In consequence of the presentation of claims by a number of contractors 
for additional compensation for the construction of war vessels for the Govern- 
ment during the war the United States Senate on March 9, 1865, passed the 
following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board, 
of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into 
and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted 
for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and 
above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to 
the Senate at its next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to 
the Department to be considered." 

The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore 
Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, commonly 
known as the Selfridge Board; and the contractor in this case presented to said 
board a claim for $18,870.41, alleging this to have been the amount of the extra 
cost of said vessel to him over and above the amount received therefor. 

Upon consideration said board decided that the vessel had cost the contractor 
over and above the amount he had received for it the sum of four thousand 
one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and thirty-nine cents ($4,128.39), and 
the board so reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was 
transmitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. 

V. No evidence has been adduced to either impeach or confirm the allowance 
made by the Selfridge Board as aforesaid. 

VI. The facts bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or 
laches in the presentation and prosecution of this claim appear to be that the 
contractor presented his claim to Congress March 16, 1864; to the Selfridge 
Board August 3, 1865, and to the Marchand Board in 1867. The claim was also 
presented to Congress in January, 1901, and later referred to the court by the 
United States Senate June 17, 1902, as hereinbefore mentioned. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of March, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ALFRED D. BULLOCK ET AL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 13106, subnumbers 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 
277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 298, 301, 303, 
304, 306. Boston Navy-Yard. Alfred D. Bullock, Joseph F. Baker, John Clark, William 
M. Carr, Winslow L. Crafts, Charles H. Crocker, Samuel Dwight, John Plynn, John F. 
Gilmore, Henry G. Hichborn, Patrick Marrow, Bben P. Oakes, Joseph Riley, William P. 
Raymond ; Jennie A. Sawyer, widow of Jefferson Sawyer, deceased ; George D. V. Smith, 
Chester R. Streeter, George K. Sawyer, Albert Sawyer, Samuel J. Cochran, William O. 
Bailey, William H. Rigby, William N. Winter, John Ward, George H. Young v. The 
United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for the payment to the above-named claimants for services 
rendered at the Boston Navy-Yard, Boston, Mass., between March 21, 1878, and 
September 22, 1882, for extra labor above the legal day of eight hours. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 137 

On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court 
a bill in the following words : 

" [S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others 
who have joined with him in a petition to this Congress dated Jauuary twenty- 
ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, the amounts that may be found due to each 
of them were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so 
employed by the United States as workmen, laborers, or mechanics at the 
various navy-yards of the United States, performed by them by reason of and 
under the provisions of circular numbered eight, issued by the Secretary of the 
Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight." 

Thereafter the claimants named above aud each of them offered and filed 
their respective petitions herein, in which they and each of them aver substan- 
tially as follows: 

That between March 21, 1S7S, and the 21st day of September, 1SS2, they and 
each of them were employed by the Government of the United States at the 
navy-yard at Boston, Mass.; that on March 21, 1S78, the Secretary of the Navy 
issued the order referred to in claimants' petitions, known as Circular No. 8, 
and set forth in Finding I herein. 

That during the six months in each year from the date of said order to the 
21st day of September, 1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time 
they were so employed in excess of eight hours per day, and that they and each 
of tueru were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so 
employed during said period, and that they and each of them are entitled to the 
amounts set forth in their respective petitions, being the pay for all time worked 
during said period in excess of eight hours per day. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on the 13th 
day of February, 190S. 

Thomas Dawson appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Percy M. Cox, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Between the 21st day of March, 1878, and the 22d day of September, 1882, 
the claimants herein, or their decedents, and each of them were in the employ of 
the United States in the navy-yard at Boston, Mass., during which time the 
following order was in force : 

" Circular No. S.] Navy Depaktment, 

" Washington, D. C, March 21, 1878. 

" The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the 
circular of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several 
navy-yards and shore stations : 

" The working hours will be — 

" From March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m. ; from September 22 
to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m. ; with the usual intermission of one 
hour for dinner. 

" The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading- 
men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to 
labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase in their wages. 

" The commandants will notify the men employed, or to be employed, of these 
conditions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under 
them or not. 

" R. W. Thompson, 

" Secretary of the Navy." 



138 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



II. Said claimants and each of them, or their decedents, while in the employ of 
the United States as aforesaid worked on the average the number of hours set 
opposite their respective names in excess of eight hours a day and at the wages 
below stated, to wit: 



Name' of claimant. 



Alfred D. Bullock .. 

Do 

Do .-. 

Joseph F. Baker — 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

John Clark 

Do 

Do 

William M. Carr 

Winslow L. Crafts. 

Do 

Charles H. Crocker 

Do 

Samuel Dwight 

John Flynn 

Do 

John F. Gilmore . . . 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Henry G. Hichborn 

Do 

Patrick Marrow 



Number 
of hours. 



417 
140 
373 
141 
160 

73 
125 
207 
220 
171 { 
338^ 

78 
362J 
232 
721 
428 
418 
, 258^ 
162 
810 
293 
175 

82 

89 
310 
130 
873 
174 



Rate per 
day. 



$1.76 
2.00 
2.26 
1.22 
1.20 
1.40 
1.50 
1.80 
3.00 
2.50 
1.76 
1.50 
1.76 
3.50 
3.00 
3.00 
3.26 
5.00 
3.50 
3.26 
1.76 
2.00 
2.26 
2.50 
3.00 
3.00 
2.76 
3.26 



Name of claimant. 



Patrick Marrow 

Eben P. Oakes 

Do 

Joseph Riley 

Do 

Do 

William P. Raymond 

Do 

Jefferson Sawyer (deceased) 

George D. V. Smith 

Chester R. Streeter 

Do 

Do 

Do 

George K. Sawyer 

Do 

Albert Sawyer 

Do 

Samuel J. Cochran 

William O. Bailey 

Do 

William H.Rigby 

William N. Winter 

Do 

John Ward 

Do 

George H. Young 

Do 



Number 
of hours. 



268 

80 
251J 
424* 
177,3 
486 ' 
241 
736 
902 

88 
936 

18 
180 

34 

655/, 
238 
268 T 7 , 
l,079i' 
1,426| 
276§ 

a S 

1,449a 

445g 

al 

36 
112 

93 
139 



Rate per 
day. 



13.00 
3.26 
3.00 
3.00 
2.76 
3.26 
3.50 
3.00 
2.50 
3.00 
3.24 
3.50 
3.74 
4.00 
2.76 
3.00 
3.00 
2.76 
2.50 
3.26 
3.00 
5.00 
3.00 
2.76 
3.50 
3.00 
3.50 
3.00 



a Less than 8 hours a day. 



III. If it is considered that eight hours constitutes a day's work under the 
said order of the Secretary of the Navy, then the claimants and each of them, 
or their decedents, have been underpaid the sums set forth opposite their respec- 
tive names, as follows: 

Alfred D. Bullock, two hundred and thirty-two dollars and eleven cents 
($332.11) ; 

Joseph F. Baker, two hundred and ten dollars and seventy-seven cents 
($210.77) ; 

John Clark, one hundred and forty- two dollars and sixty -four cents ($142.64) : 

William M. Carr, seventy-nine dollars and sixty-seven cents ($79.67) ; 

Winslow L. Crafts, three hundred and seventy-one dollars and eighty-seven 
cents ($371.87) ; 

Charles H. Crocker, three hundred and thirty dollars and eighty-three cents 
($330.83) ; 

Samuel Dwight, seven hundred and eighty-six dollars and sixtv-two cents 
($786.62) ; 

John Flynn, four hundred dollars and ninety-four cents ($400.94) ; 

John F. Gilmore, two hundred and seventy-five dollars and forty-four cents 
($275.44) ; 

Henry G. Hichborn, three hundred and forty-nine dollars and ninety-three 
cents ($349.93) ; 

Patrick Marrow,' one hundred and seventy-one dollars and forty cents 
($171.40) ; 

Eben P. 
($126.79) 

Joseph 
($418.59) 

William P. Raymond, three hundred and eighty-one dollars and forty-four 
cents ($381.44) ; 

Jennie A. Sawyer, widow of Jefferson Sawyer, deceased, two hundred and 
eighty-one dollars and eighty-seven cents ($281.87) ; 

George D. V. Smith, thirty-three dollars ($33) ; 

Chester R. Streeter, four hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ten cents 
($488.10) ; 



Oakes, one hundred and twenty-six dollars and seventy-nine cents 
Riley, four hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty-nine cents 



J. Cochran, four hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty-three cents 
O. Bailey, one hundred and twelve dollars and twenty-nine cents 
H. Rigby, nine hundred and five dollars and seventy-eight cents 
N. Winter, one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 139 

George K. Sawyer, three hundred and fifteen dollars and forty-three cents 
($315.43) ; 

Albert Sawyer, four hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifteen cents 
($473.15) ; 

Samuel 
($445.83) ; 

William 
($112.29) ; 

William 
($905.78) ; 

William 
($166.66) ; 

John Ward, fifty-seven dollars and seventy -five cents ($57.75) ; 

George H. Young, ninety-two dollars and eighty-one cents ($92.81). 

IV. The claim of the several individuals hereinbefore mentioned, or either of 
them, were never presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to the presentation thereof to Congress and reference to this court, as here- 
inbefore set forth in the statement of the case, nor is any competent evidence ad- 
duced to show why said claimants did not earlier prosecute their said claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 20, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

MRS. J. H. T. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ELIZABETH H. 

WELFORD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11441. Mrs. J. H. T. Jackson, administratrix 
of estate of Elizabeth H. Welford, deceased v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

By resolution of the United States Senate, adopted on April 26, 1904, Senate 
bill No. 1108, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of 
fact under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as 
follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Mrs. Elizabeth Hull Welford, deceased. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Mrs. 
Elizabeth Hull Welford, deceased, nee Miss Elizabeth Hull Thomas, late of 
Marshall County, Mississippi, the sum of eighteen thousand and twenty-eight 
dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and 
used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 
The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations : 
That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Mar- 
shall, State of Mississippi ; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting 
administratrix of the estate of her deceased sister, Mrs. Elizabeth Hull Welford ; 
that during the late civil war said decedent was a resident of said county of 
Marshall, State of Mississippi ; that during said war the United States military 
forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, for use of the Army, 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below 
stated, to wit : 

3,500 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel $3, 500. 00 

10,800 bundles fodder, at 2 cents per bundle 216. 00 

1,600 pounds bacon and ham ^ 320. 00 

110 hogs, at $10 each 1, 100. 00 

500 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 750. 00 

17 mules, at $150 each _^___ 2, 250. 00 



140 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

1 horse $150. 00 

166 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 166. 00 

35 cattle, at $20 each 700. 00 

20 sheep, at $3 each 60. 00 

8,000 rails, at $3 per 100 240. 00 

3,000 bricks, at $8 per 1,000 24.00 

Lumber 100. 00 

Cotton, used as bedding 166.00 

35 bushels peas, at $1.50 per bushel 52. 50 

Total 10, 201. 50 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of 
December, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late civil war the petitioner's decedent, Mrs. Elizabeth Hull 
Welford (then Miss Elizabeth Hull Thomas), was a citizen of the United 
States, residing in the county of Marshall, State of Mississippi, and throughout 
said war remained loyal to the United States Government, her loyalty resting 
on her tender years during said war. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper author- 
ity, took from petitioner's decedent quartermaster stores and commissary sup- 
plies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of 
taking were reasonably worth the sum of thirty-six hundred and fifty dollars 
($3,650), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. A claim for the property herein was presented to the Southern Claims 
Commission by claimant's decedent, but no testimony was submitted, it being 
alleged that the expense thereof was greater than she was able to bear. There- 
after the claim was referred to this court under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, by resolution of the United States 
Senate, as hereinbefore stated. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of January, 1908. , 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF VERNON H. JOHNSTON. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional Case No. 11492. Heirs of Vernon H. Johnston, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On February 24, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate, to wit : 

"A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Vernon H. Johnston, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and 
he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury 
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Vernon H. 
Johnston, deceased, late of Hinds County, Mississippi, the sum of seven thou- 
sand three hundred dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken 
for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on April 26, 
1904, for findings of fact under the provisions of section 14 of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of 
February, 1906. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 141 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they are citizens of the United States ; that petitioner Mary Julia Quick, 
is a resident of the county of Lauderdale, State of Mississippi ; that petitioner 
Belle O. Coward is a resident of the county of Leflore, State of Mississippi, and 
that petitioner John Anderson is a resident of the county of Rusk, State of 
Texas ; that Vernon H. Johnston departed this life in 1S62, in the county of 
Hinds, State of Mississippi, leaving surviving him his widow, Fannie J. John- 
ston, and three children, to wit, Mary J. Johnston, Belle O. Johnston, and 
Vernon Olivia Johnston ; that by the terms of the will of said Vernon H. John- 
ston said widow and children were equal beneficiaries in the estate left by said 
Vernon H. Johnston ; that after the death of said Vernon H. Johnston the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, did take from said widow 
and children of said Vernon H. Johnston, from their plantation near Cayuga, 
Hinds County, Miss., quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds 
below mentioned, of the total value of $4,320, to wit : 

Taken by army under command of Generals Grant and Slocum, in spring of 
1863, during operations about Vicksburg: 1,000 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel; 
10,000 pounds of fodder ; 4 barrels of molasses, at $20 per barrel ; 2 barrels of 
sugar, 600 pounds; 2 barrels of lard, 600 pounds; 25 bushels of salt; 7,000 
pounds of salt meat, at 10 cents per pound; one-half barrel sausage; 4 barrels 
pickled beef, at $15 per barrel ; 300 bushels sweet potatoes ; 10 bushels dried 
fruit ; butter, eggs, and poultry ; 5 mules, at $175 each ; 3 horses, at $150 each ; 
4 yoke of oxen, at $60 per yoke ; 25 cattle, at $20 each ; 100 hogs ; 75 sheep ; 1 
wagon ; 1 cart ; bedding and clothing ; 1 set teaspoons, silver, and butter knives ; 
1 set tablespoons ; table cutlery ; tinware ; stone vessels : 25 bales cotton. 

That after the taking of said property, to wit, October 9, 1874, said child, 
Vernon Olivia Johnston, died, unmarried, her estate thereupon becoming vested 
in her two sisters, Mary Julia Johnston and Belle O. Johnston ; that thereafter, 
to wit, July 4, 1900, said widow, Fannie J. Johnston, died, leaving surviving 
her said daughter Mary Julia Quick, nee Johnston, and said daughter Belle O. 
Coward, nee Johnston, said daughters being of the marriage between said 
Vernon H. Johnston and said Fannie J. Johnston, and also left surviving her 
the petitioner John Anderson, who is a representative of said Fannie J. John- 
ston by reason of the following facts: At the time of the marriage of said 
Fannie J. Johnston and said Vernon H. Johnston said Fannie J. Johnston was 
a widow, her name prior to said marriage having been Faulkner ; by her first 
husband (Faulkner) she had a daughter, Jennie Faulkner; said Jennie Faulk- 
ner married petitioner John Anderson, and by him had a child, which died in 
infancy ; thereafter said Jennie Faulkner-Anderson died, leaving petitioner John 
Anderson surviving her ; that the relative interests of the petitioners in and to 
this claim are as follows : 

That in their own rights and as representatives of their deceased sister, 
Vernon Olivia Johnston, each of petitioners, Mary Julia Quick and Belle O. 
Coward, claims an undivided nine twenty-fourths interest, independently of 
anything inherited from their mother, Fannie J. Johnston, from whom each 
of said last-named petitioners inherits an undivided two twenty-fourths interest, 
thus making vested in each of said petitioners an undivided eleven twenty- 
fourths interest; that said John Anderson, petitioner, is the owner of an un- 
divided two twenty-fourths interest in this claim, as representative of said 
Fannie J. Johnston, deceased, through his deceased wife. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on each side, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

L Vernon H. Johnston died testate in 1862. By the terms of his will all 
beneficial interest in his estate, after payment of certain legacies, was vested 
in his widow, Fannie J. Johnston, and his children, Mary Julia Johnston (now 
Quick), Belle O. Johnston (now Coward), and Vernon Olivia Johnston. Said 
widow and children remained loyal to the United States Government through- 
out the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. At the close of said war 
the eldest of said children was under 10 years of age, and the loyalty of said 
children rests upon their tender years during the war. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper author- 
ity, took from said widow and children of Vernon H. Johnstons-deceased, for the 



142 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies 
of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were 
reasonably worth the sum of four thousand three hundred and twenty dollars 
($4,320), for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is 
made for cotton, butter, eggs, poultry, bedding, clothing, silverware, or house- 
hold utensils, the taking thereof not appearing to have been authorized, nor is 
any allowance made for damages. 

III. The petitioners before the court are Mary Julia Quick, Belle O. Coward, 
and John Anderson, whose respective interests are as follows : 

Mary Julia Quick, eleven twenty-fourths, amounting to $1, 980 

Belle O. Coward, eleven twenty-fourths, amounting to 1, 980 

John Anderson, two twenty-fourths, amounting to 360 

The interests of petitioners Mary Julia Quick and Belle O. Coward are in 
their own rights and as representatives of their deceased sister, Vernon Olivia 
Johnston, and of their mother, Fannie J. Johnston, now deceased. The interest 
of John Anderson is as representative of said Fannie J. Johnston, through his 
deceased wife, to the extent of one-third of the estate of said Fannie J. 
Johnston, his. said wife having been Jennie Faulkner, daughter of Fannie J. 
Johnston by a former marriage. 

IV. This claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission under 
the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, though it was placed in the hands 
of an attorney as early as 1873 or 1874. On March 3, 1873, when the time for 
filing claims before said Commission expired, all of said three children and heirs 
of Vernon H. Johnston were minors. These facts are reported as bearing upon 
the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of 
the claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant. Clerk Court of Claims. 

ROBEBT M. LAY, ADMINISTRATOR OF NANCY LAY. 

[Court of Claims. Term 1906 and 1907. Congressional, No. 10354. Robert M. Lay, 
administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased, v. The United States.! 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken or furnished 
to the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. On the 4th day of February, 1901, the United States Senate 
by resolution referred to the court a bill in the following words : 

"[S. 3964, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of Robert Lay, administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased. 

"Be it enated in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and 
he hereby is, directed to pay to Robert Lay, administrator of Nancy Lay, 
deceased, the sum of five thousand one hundred and forty-six dollars, for prop- 
erty taken from Nancy Lay by the United States Army during the late war." 
The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 
The claimant, Robert M. Lay, jr., respectfully represents — 
I. That he is the administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased, appointed on the 
4th day of March, 1901, by the chancery clerk in vacation of the court, in and 
for the county of Scott and State of Mississippi, his warrant of authority being 
herewith brought into court ; that said decedent was, during the late war, a resi- 
dent of the State of Mississippi, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 143 

rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

II. That the following property belonging to Nancy Lay, deceased, was taken 
from her by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, 
and command being particularly stated below : 

In Scott County, in the State of Mississippi, on or about the 10th and 19th 
days of February, 1S64, by the United States forces, namely, the Sixteenth and 
Seventeenth Army Corps, under Gen. W. T. Sherman. 

1. 2,100 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $2, 100 

2. 7,000 pounds of bacon, at 15 cents per pound 1, 050 

3. 4 fine horses, at $150 each 600 

4. 8 large oxen, at $40 each , 320 

5. 420 pounds of lard, at 20 cents per pound 84 

6. 48 meat hogs, at $4 each 192 

7. 3 fine mules, at $150 each 450 

8. 5,000 pounds of fodder," at $1 per hundred 50 

9. 12 beef cattle, at $15 each 180 

10. 70 bushels of oats, at $1 per bushel 70 

11. 100 bushels of potatoes, at 50 cents per bushel : 50 



5,146 

III. That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims 
Commission, May, 1872, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 

Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being 
that it was not presented until after the time allowed for the presentation of 
claims to the said tribunal. 

IV. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-sixth Congress and 
was, by the resolution of the Senate of the said Fifty-sixth Congress — it was 
on the 4th day of February, 1901 — referred to this court for a finding of the 
facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled 
"An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government." 

V. That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in 
Congress or by any of the Departments ; that the claimant is the sole owner 
of this claim and the only person interested therein ; that no assignment or 
transfer of this claim, or of any part thereof or interest therein, has been made ; 
that the claimant is justly entitled to the amount therein claimed from the United 
States after allowing all just credits and offsets ; that the claimant is a citizen 
of the United States. And the claimant believes that the facts as stated in this 
petition to be true. 

And the claimant prays a finding of the facts in accordance with the afore- 
said act. 

The case was brought to a preliminary hearing on the subject of loyalty, 
and on the 26th day of March, 1906, the claimant was found loyal. The case 
was brought to a hearing oh the merits on the 18th day of February, 1907, 
George A. & William B. King appearing on behalf of the claimant, and J. A. 
Van Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, F. W. Collins, appear- 
ing for the defense and protection of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both .sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Nancy Lay, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period there was taken by the military forces of the United 
States for the use of the Army, from claimant's decedent in Scott County, State 
of Mississippi, property of kind and character described in the petition, which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of twenty-eight 
hundred and four dollars ($2,804), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. A claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Com- 
mission in May, 1872, but by that tribunal disallowed, for the reason that the 
same was not presented until after the time allowed for the presentation of 
claims to said tribunal. 



144 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter the claim was presented to the Ffty-sixth Congress, and on Feb- 
ruary 4, 1901, was referred to this court under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARGARET RAIFORD LOFTIN (NEE MARGARET RAIFORD), ADMIN- 
ISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9592. Margaret Eaiford Loftin (nee Margaret 
Raiford) administratrix of the estate of Robert Raiford, deceased, v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause, for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 17th day of July, 
1897, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of October, 
1901. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, aud under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Marshall County, State 
of Mississippi, where the decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion ; 
that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper 
authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary sup- 
plies of the value of $4,390 and appropriated the same to the use of the United 
States Army, as follows : 

Taken on or about October 7, 1863, at or near Collierville, Tenn., by 
Lieut. John B. Pierce, Third Illinois Cavalry: 

12 mules, at $125 $1, 500 

1 horse 300 

Taken October 9, 1863, by Lieut. W. E. B. Houston, Sixth Tennessee 
Cavalry. 

2 horses 200 

Taken on or about February 11, 1864, in Shelby County, Tenn., by Lieu- 
tenant McGee, Fifth Kentucky Cavalry, acting assistant quartermas- 
ter, Third Brigade, Cavalry Division, Col. L. F'. McCrillis commanding : 

2 mules, at $150 300 

2 horses, at $165 330 

3,000 pounds fodder, at $2 per hundredweight 60 

700 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 700 

Total ._ 3, 390 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Robert Raiford, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been 
taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war 
for the supression of the rebellion. 

II. There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Marshall County, Miss., 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind and 
character above described which were then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of two thousand five hundred and seventy-eight dollars ($2,578). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 145 

III. The claim was presented to the quartermaster's office under the act of 
July 4, 1864, and by him considered and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
There was no subsequent presentation to any department of the Government 
prior to its reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, and no evi- 
dence has been offered by the claimant under said act " bearing upon the ques- 
tion whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim, or apply- 
ing for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the ques- 
tion whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which 
shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any estab- 
lished legal renidy." 

By the Coubt. 

Filed December 2, 1901. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of February, 1902. 

[seajl.] John Randolph, 

, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES M. PRICE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case' No. 11109. James M. Price, sole heir and legatee 
of Thomas J. Price, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On February 5, 1902. the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate : 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Thomas J. Price, deceased. 

u Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Thomas 
J. Price, deceased, late of Alcorn County, Mississippi, the sum of eleven thou- 
sand seven hundred and forty-five dollars, in full compensation for stores and 
supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late 
war of the rebellion." 

Said bill was referred to this court on March 2, 1903, by resolution of the 
Senate, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the 
act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2Sth clay of 
March, 1906. 

Moyers & Consul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Walker, State of Alabama ; that he is sole heir and legatee of Thomas J Price, 
deceased, late of .the county of Alcorn, State of Mississippi; that during said 
war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said 
decedent and converted to the use of the United States Government and Army, 
stores, supplies, and property of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 

400 bushels of corn, at $1 per 'bushel $400.00 

4 head of horses, at $125 500. 00 

6 head of mules, at $125 750. 00 

1 yoke of oxen 75.00 

4 milk cows and calves, at $20 80. 00 

6 head of dry cattle, at $5 30. 00 

20 head of hogs, at $15 300. 00 

2 wagons 120. 00 

1 hack and harness 110. 00 

1 buggy and harness : 50. 00 

Use and occupation of dwelling for headquarters and hospital 100. 00 

Occupancy of farm for camps and general use 100. 00 

Timber and fencing taken 250. 00 

Damage to farm by loss of land in making breastworks^ 1, 500. 00 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 10 



146 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Damage to crops : 3,000 pounds cotton, at $1 $3, 000. 00 

600 bushels corn, at $1, $600; 172 bushels cotton seed, at 10 cents, 
$17.20 ; 2,000 pounds baled cotton, at $1, $2,000 ; 2,000 pounds seed 

cotton, at $1, $2,000 _ 4,617.00 

128 bushels cotton seed in balel cotton, at 10 cents 12. SO 

Total ___: 11, 995. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Thomas J. Price, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from 
claimant's decedent, Thomas J. Price, in Alcorn County, Miss., property as 
above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of six 
hundred and sixty-five dollars ($665), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 2, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of June, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM T. RATLIFF, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9577. William T. Ratliff, administrator of 
the estate of Sarah G. Clark, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court 
by a resolution of the United States Senate on the 17th day of July, 1897. 

The court, on the 22d day of October, 1900, found that the person alleged to 
have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have 
been taken, did nothing throughout that war for or against the United States or 
the Confederate States except to express herself in favor of the Union and to 
furnish food to some of the officers and soldiers of the United States Army 
about the time of the taking of the property for which the claim is made in 
this case. 

On the same day the case was brought to a hearing on its. merits. 

Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Hinds County, State of 
Mississippi, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at 
different times during the said period the United States forces, by proper au- 
thority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies 
of the value of $6,215 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States 
Army, as follows : 

Taken from the decedent's premises at or near Jackson, Hinds County, Miss., 
in May, 1864, by General Grant's raid ,and during the siege in July by the 
United States troops, and Sherman's raid to Meridian : 

4 bales of cotton $1,800.00 

Furniture, beds, bedding, carpets, rugs, damask and lace curtains, dry 

goods, clothing, and table linen 900. 00 

1 pair of carriage horses 500. 00 

1 pair of mules 350. 00 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 147 

1 riding horse $125.00 

1 top buggy and harness 300. 00 

1 wagon and harness 75.00 

600 bushels corn 450. 00 

Fooder and hay 20.00 

7 cows and calves 350.00 

3 hogs 20. 00 

2 hogsheads sugar 70.00 

2 hogsheads molasses 65. 00 

5 barrels of flour 50. 00 

11 sacks coffee 60.00 

1,600 pounds bacon and hams 142. 00 

200 pounds lard 32.00 

2 boxes tobacco 36.00 

100 pounds rice , 20.00 

Sundries 75. 00 

Jewelry and silverware 500. 00 

China and glassware 150.00 

Paintings and bric-a-brac 125. 00 

Total 6, 215. 00 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

I. About two years before the war of the rebellion commenced, the husband 
of the claimant's decedent departed this life, leaving his widow, said claimant, 
surviving. During the war the claimant resided in the city of Jackson, State of 
Mississippi, and was the owner of two or three houses and lots in said city, and 
was also the owner of a plantation about 15 miles from said city. 

She died in 1873, never having presented any claim for the property now 
alleged to have been taken to the commissioners of claims, nor to any other 
department of the Government, and the only -reason shown therefor is that she 
was in ill health. 

II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, at or near Jackson, in 
Hinds County, State of Mississippi, during the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, 
property consisting of 3 horses, 1 mule, 1 wagon, 600 bushels of corn, 7 cows, 
2 hogsheads of sugar, and 5 barrels of flour, which then and there was reason- 
ably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred and fifty-five dollars ($1,355). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

The other items of property alleged in the petition to have been taken are not 
proven to have been taken or used by the United States Army, and no allowance 
is made therefor. 

By the Coubt. 

Filed October 29, 1900. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of November, A. D., 1900. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.. 

W. T. SMITH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11434. W. T. Smith, administrator of estate of 
Maria A. Relnhardt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

By resolution of the United States Senate of April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 
607, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact in 
accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
commonly known as the Tucker Act, said bill reading as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of M. A. Reinhardt 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 



148 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
treasury not otherwise appropriated, to M. A. Reinhardt, of Benton County, 
Mississippi, the sum of eight thousand four hundred dollars, for stores and sup- 
plies taken and used by the Federal forces during the late war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of 
December, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the county of Benton, State of Mississippi, that he is the 
duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Maria A. 
Reinhardt, deceased, late of said county and State ; that during the late civil 
war said defendant was a citizen of the United States, residing in that portion 
of the county of Marshall, State of Mississippi, later embraced in said county of 
Benton ; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States 
Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values 
below stated, to wit : 

3,450 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel $3, 450 

8 mules, at $150 each 1, 200 

4 horses, at $150 each 600 

28 head of cattle, at $15 each 420 

400 bushels wheat, at $1 per bushel 400 

5 tons of blade fodder, at $20 per ton 100 

1 4-mule iron axle wagon 100 

1 6-mule iron axle wagon 100 

40 sheep, at $2.50 per head 100 

75 fat hogs, at $10 each 750 

1,200 pounds cured meat, at 10 cents per pound 120 

4J tons sheaf oats, at $20 per ton 90 

100 bushels of rye, at $1 per bushel 100 

Total 7, 530 

That said decedent departed this life in 1870, prior to the establishment of 
the Southern Claims Commissibn ; that the heirs of said decedent presented this 
claim to Congress as early as 1878. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Maria A. Rein- 
hardt, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- 
thority for the use of the Army took from claimant's decedent in Marshall 
County (now embraced in Benton County), State of Mississippi, property as 
above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth 
the sum of three thousand three hundred and ninety-five dollars ($3,395), no 
part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. That claimant's decedent died in 1870, prior to the establishment of the 
Southern Claims Commission. Her heirs presented the claim to Congress in 
187S. The claim was referred to the court by the Committee on War Claims 
of the House of Representatives April 10, 1S90, under the provisions of the act 
of March 3, 18S3 ; and the cause thus referred was numbered on the docket as 
7580 Congressional. Said case was, on October 31, 1901, dismissed for want 
of prosecution. Thereafter bills were introduced in the Fifty-sixth, Fifty- 
seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses for the relief of the claimants and subse- 
quently referred to the court by resolution of the Senate as hereinbefore set 
forth. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 149 

No other evidence is offered upon the question whether there has been delay 
or laches in the presentation of said claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHARLES O. SPENCER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9595. Charles O. Spencer v. The United States.] 

The claim in this case, for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by 
the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court in July, 1897, under 
section 14 of the Tucker Act, by resolution of the United States Senate. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 2d day of November, 1899, Gilbert 
Moyers, esq., appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John G. 
Capers, esq., his assistant, for the defense. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That lie is a citizen of the United States, residing in Tippah County, State of 
Mississippi, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at differ- 
ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took 
from him quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $4,629 
and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army. 

Taken from the claimant's premises near Salem, Tippah County, Miss., by 
Colonel Deitzler, of General Denver's division, December 23, 1862 ; January 16, 
1863 ; June 4, 1863, and June, 1864 ; also by Colonel Hatch and General Sturgis's 
command : 

1 six-horse iron-axle wagon $150 

6 sets harness 75 

5 head mules 750 

270 bushels corn, at 50 cents 135 

200 bundles fodder 4 

7,500 pounds of pork, at 10 cents 750 

50 head of stock hogs, at $10 500 

3 cows 60 

2 yearlings 20 

5 mules 750 

5 cows 100 

6 yearlings 60 

1 fine horse and saddle 175 

4 mules 600 

250 bushels of corn 250 

1 barrel molasses 40 

1 barrel of flour : 10 

1,000 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents 200 

Total 4,609 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

There were taken from the claimant and another, in Tippah County, State of 
Mississippi, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military 
forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the 
kind above described, a part of which was owned by the claimant, and the part 
so owned by plaintiff and taken from him was then and there reasonably worth 
the sum of two thousand and thirty-one dollars ($2,031), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

The claimant was born in February, 1850, and when the property was taken 
he was still in his minority and took no part in the rebellion. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1899. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1900. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



150 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

HARRIETT MILES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10406. Harriett Miles v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for use and occupation and damage to 
property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the United States 
for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was trans- 
mitted to the court by resolution of United States Senate on the 26th day of 
February, 1901, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 
1902. 

Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared lor claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
G. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Warren County, State of 
Mississippi, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at differ- 
ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took 
from her quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $9,092.50 
and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : 

Four buildings consisting of a one-story frame dwelling, a stable, cow 
house, and servants' quarters, torn down by the Federal forces and 
the materials used by the said forces, on square No. 54, Vicksburg, 
Miss $4, 000. 00 

1,370 feet of plank fence, 7 feet high, taken and used around north 
half of square No. 54, Vicksburg, Miss 342. 50 

Destruction of fruit trees, garden, and shrubbery, on N. half of square 

No. 54, Vicksburg, Miss : 1, 000. 00 

Damage to ground, north half of square No. 54, in the city of Vicks- 
burg, Miss 1,500.00 

For the use and occupation of said land, square No. 54, in the city of 
Vicksburg, for two years and six months by the Federal authorities, 
at $75 per month 2, 250. 00 



9, 092. 50 
(Occupation commenced in July, 1863.) 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war of the rebellion, in Warren County, State of Mississippi, 
the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, took materials 
from the claimant's buildings, which were reasonably worth at the time and 
place of taking the sum of one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five dollars 
($1,795), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

No allowance is made for the use and occupation of the premises, and no 
allowance is made for the alleged damage and destruction to the claimant's 
property. 

III. The claim was not presented to any department of the Government prior 
to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of 
March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth, and no evidence has been offered by 
the claimant bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches 
in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any 
facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation 
should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not 
having resorted to any established legal remedy, except that in 1863 the claim- 
ant presented to a military commission appointed by General Grant, in 1863, a 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 151 

claim for damages growing out of the destruction of buildings, trees, and fenc- 
ing in the construction of forts on the premises of the claimant. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 1, 1902. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1903. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MISSOURI. 

C. A. JARRED, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11844. C. A. Jarred, administrator of the estate 
of Leroy Noble, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims by order of the Com- 
mittee on Claims, United States Senate, in the Fifty-eighth Congress, third 
session, on March 3, 1905, under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1SS7, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 5796, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Leroy Noble. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Leroy Noble, of Wicks, Polk County, 
Arkansas, the sum of three thousand one hundred and seven dollars and fifty 
cents ($3,107.50), in full for property taken during the civil war for the use of 
the Union Army." 

The claimant, Leroy Noble, appeared and filed his petition herein May 23, 
1905, in which he makes the following allegations : 

That he lived during the civil war at Ebenezer, Mo., and was always a loyal 
citizen of the United States. 

That at different times during the war the following property was taken 
from him by the troops designated, to wit : 

By Missouri State militia : 
August 22, 1861— 

1 mare $200. 00 

November, 1862 — 

200 bushels of corn 200. 00 

Destroying bees and taking honey 30. 00 

4 hogs 30. 00 

By Kansas troops : 

December 5, 1862— 

1 mare and saddle 225. 00 

July 25, 1863— 

32 tons of hay 640. 00 

By Illinois troops : 

September, 1S65— 

100 bushels of corn 100. 00 

100 bushels of oats 100.00 

Honey of the value of 30. 00 

February, 1864— 

220 bushels of wheat 440. 00 

100 bushels of oats 100. 00 

500 bushels of corn 500. 00 

Feeding 39 men, night and morning SO. 00 

Feeding 98 mules 24.00 

Feeding 34 horses 8. 50 

By Missouri State militia : 

September, 1864 — 

2 bay mares 310. 00 

Total 3, 107. 50 



152 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That no compensation has ever been made to claimant or anyone else for 
this property by the United States. 

That he did not know of the passage of the Tucker Act until just before he 
presented his claim in the Fifty-eighth Congress, third session. 

The case was brought to a hearing on January 13, 190S, Ellen Spencer Mussey 
appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, his 
assistant, and under his direction, appearing for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Leroy Noble, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the miliary forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Ebenezer, 
Mo., property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and 
forty dollars ($740), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

No allowance is made for meals furnished soldiers or for feed for horses. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason is 
given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall 
excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of February, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF CHRISTIAN CHURCH, MARSHALL, MO. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12429. Trustees of the Christian Church of 
Marshall, Mo., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 
1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following 
words : 

" [S. 2492, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Marshall, Missouri. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United, 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church 
of Marshall, Missouri, the sum of three thousand dollars for use of and damage 
to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the 
late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of December, 1906, and 
filed their petition, in which they substantially aver — 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of the church building of the Christian Church, of Marshall, Mo., 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date until on 
or about August, 1865, said building being occupied by various commands, 
including the First, Fourth, and Seventh Missouri Cavalry and Seventh U. S. 
Infantry. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so 
occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condi- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 153 

tion in which it was at the time the said military* forces took possession, was 
the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of 
October, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Christian Church of Marshall, Mo., 
as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
late war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the building described in 
the petition and used and occupied the same from about March, 1862, to about 
August, 1865, and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together with 
the reasonable damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of twelve hundred and forty dollars ($1,240), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is 
given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall 
excuse the claimant church for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Cottbt. 
Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, HARRISON- 

VILLE, MO. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11649. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, Harrisonville, Mo., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 2025, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 

Harrisonville, Missouri! 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Harrisonville, Missouri, the sum of two thousand dollars, for 
injury to their church building resulting from the occupation of the same by the 
military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrisonville, Mo., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court July 9, 1904, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the said church 
was the owner of a certain church building 70 feet long and two stories high, 
situated on the west side of Independence street and north of the public square, 
in the city of Harrisonville, Mo. 

That the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of said building and used and occupied the same for a period of three 
years, during the years from 1861 to 1864, and by reason of said occupancy the 



154 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

said building was greatly damaged, and the cost to restore the building to the 
condition in which it was when said occupancy began was the sum of $2,000. 
The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of 
October, 1905. 

■ G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel for both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
of Harrisonville, Mo., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United 
States during the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for 
military purposes, the church building belonging to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South of Harrisonville, Mo., from 1861 to 1864, a period of three years. 
The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the damages incident 
to such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred and seventy-nine dollars and 
seventy-five cents ($779.75), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF MEXICO, 

MO. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13158. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Mexico, Mo., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words : 

"[S. 8591, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
" A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Missouri. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Mexico, Missouri, the sum of two thousand dollars, in full 
compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the property of 
said church by United States military forces during the civil war." 

Said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that : 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, 
Mo., consisting of a well-constructed brick church building about 60 or 70 feet in 
length by 40 feet in width, and occupied the same for about three years, at times 
as a prison or guardhouse, at times as a commissary, and for other military pur- 
poses, and thereby greatly injured the property; that a claim was filed in the 
Quartermaster-General's Office soon after the war, but payment was never 
made ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, 
including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition 
as before such occupation, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has 
been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, 
or given encouragement to rebellion against said Government. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 155 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of 
February, 1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following t 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Mo., was, as a church, 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the late civil war there was taken possession of by the Missouri 
State Militia the church building described in the petition and by them used and 
occupied from time to time for a period of about two years, and damaged the 
same. The reasonable rental value thereof during said period, together with 
damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the 
sum of seven hundred and ten dollars ($710), no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

III. A claim was presented by the claimant church herein to the Quartermas- 
ter-General for rent and repairs amounting to $2,9S0, and by that officer sus- 
pended in November, 1896, for want of sufficient testimony. Thereafter the 
claim herein was presented to Congress and referred to this court March 2, 
1907, by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the 
statement of the case. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, SPRING- 
FIELD, MO. 

'I Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11720. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Springfield, Mo., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Ant : 

" [S. 4994, Fifty -eighth Congress, second session.] 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 

Springfield, Missouri. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Springfield, Missouri, the sum of four thousand one hundred 
and forty-two dollars and ninety-two cents for the use of and damage to their 
church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war 
of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Springfield, Mo., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court January 16, 1905, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
10th day of August, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, at Springfied, Mo., and used and occupied the same for hospital 
and other purposes until on or about the 1st of May, 1864. That the reasonable 
rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied was the sum 
of $75 per month, amounting to the sum of $2,425. 



156 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That by reason of such use and occupation repairs were necessary, and it cost 
the sum of $1,717.92 to restore the building to the same condition in which it 
was when said troops first took possession of the same, and the United States 
is justly indebted to them in the total sum of $4,142.92, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of 
February, 1905. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, 
by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Springfield, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war of the rebellion, from August, 1861, to May, 1864, United 
States troops, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Springfield, Mo., and used and occupied 
the said church building for military purposes. By reason of such occupancy 
repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building, in- 
cluding repairs necessary to restore the church building to the condition in 
which it was when said troops took possession of the same, was the sum of 
three thousand one hundred and fifty dollars ($3,150), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Cottet. 
Filed February 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of June, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF STURGEON, MO. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12430. Trustees of the Christian Church of Stur- 
geon, Mo., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for damage to a church building resulting from the use and 
occupation of the same by the military forces of the United States during the 
late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate re- 
ferred to the court a bill in the following words : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Sturgeon, Missouri. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church 
of Sturgeon, Missouri, the sum of one thousand dollars for damage to their 
church property resulting from the occupation of the same by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of September, 1906,, 
and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church 
of Sturgeon, Mo., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until 
the close of the war. 

That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to 
restore the said building to the condition in which it was at the time the said 
military forces took possession of the same was the sum of $1,000, for which 
no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the ,11th day of 
February, 1907. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 157 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by 
W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Christian Church of Sturgeon, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- 
ing described in the petition and used and occupied the same for hospital pur- 
poses and as a stable at intervals the greater part of the time from the summer 
of 1S61 to October, 1864, for which it was paid through the Quartermaster's 
Department the sum of $450 for rent, no payment being made for damages. 

During the occupancy for the purpose aforesaid the flooring was torn out 
of the church building, the pews and pulpit and the doors and windows dam- 
aged. Said damages, over and above ordinary wear and tear, were at the 
time and place reasonably worth the sum of $550. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, OF JEFFERSON 

CITY, MO. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11620. Trustees of the First Baptist Church, 
of Jefferson City, Mo., v. The United States;] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 738, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, 

Missouri. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the First Baptist 
Church, of Jefferson City, Missouri, the sum of two thousand seven hundred 
dollars, for the use of and damage to church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Mo., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court July 30, 1904, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of their church 
building and used and occupied the same for military purposes for a period of 
about four years, during the years 1S61 to 1864, inclusive, by reason of which 
extensive repairs were necessary to restore said building to the condition in 
which it was when said occupancy began, and the United States is justly 
indebted to said church, as follows: 

For rent of church building for four years, at $300 ;__ $1, 200 

For repairs to the same 1, 500 

Total 2,700 



158 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of 
January, 1905. 

C. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson 
City, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, from the month of 
September, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson 
City, Mo., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date 
until the spring of 1865. The reasonable rental value of said property during 
the period it was used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the building in the same condition in which it was when the occupation began, 
was the sum of one thousand three hundred and eighty dollars ($1,380), for 
which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of February, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11632. The University of Missouri v. The United 

States. ] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court in April, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the University of the State of Missouri. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of seventeen thousand 
four hundred and seventy-five dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the 
University of the State of Missouri for property damaged and destroyed by the 
United States troops during the occupancy by them of the buildings and prop- 
erty of said university during the civil war." 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court June 2, 1904, 
in which they make, in substance, the following allegations : 

That the University of Missouri is an institution organized under the laws of 
the State of Missouri ; that during the civil war said university was loyal to 
the United States ; that during said war United States troops, by proper author- 
ity, used and occupied the building of said university and damaged the same 
as follows: 

Damage to main building and grounds ! $3, 625 

Damage to grammar school 300 

Damage to apparatus in laboratory 400 

Damage to library 2, 000 

Damage to trees, fences, grounds 1, 000 

Damage to president's house 150 

To replace minerals taken from cabinet — 10, 000 

Total 17,475 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 159 

That the university filed a claim for rent and damages in the War Depart- 
ment, the claim for rent being settled, but the claim for damages being rejected 
because the Department could not entertain a claim for damages. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 28th day of 
February, 1905. 

Ralston & Siddons appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is a body corporate under the name of the Curators of the 
University of the State of Missouri, organized and existing as an institution of 
learning. During the civil war the president and board of curators of said 
institution were loyal men, and none of its property was applied to aid or sup- 
port the rebellion." 

II. Prior to and during the civil war the said university was the owner of 
certain lands and buildings at Columbia, Boone County, Mo., which property 
was being used in its educational work, and which consisted of its main uni- 
versity building, a grammar school or preparatory department building, a house 
for the residence of the president of the university, and a campus and ground 
embracing about 20 acres of land adjacent to the buildings. This property 
was at the commencement of the war valued at one hundred and sixty-nine 
thousand ($169,000) dollars. 

III. Commencing in the fall of 1S61 the campus and buildings of the univer- 
sity were occupied for headquarters of commanding officers, barracks for troops, 
hospital, prison, storage, stables, camping, and other military purposes by 
numerous organizations of United States troops, including both cavalry and 
infantry, this being continued, except for occasional short intervals, until the 
close of the war. The commands of troops were in part the Second Missouri 
Cavalry ("Merrill's Horse," commanded by Col. Lewis Merrill), the Third 
Iowa, Ninth Missouri State Militia, and Sixty-second Missouri Enrolled Militia. 

IV. During this occupation the property of the university was severely 
damaged by the United States forces. They used the fences, plank walks, out- 
buildings, and shade trees for fuel. They also injured the main building, gram- 
mar school, and president's house by using the same, by removing the banister 
on the main stairs, and in other ways, which damages were in addition to the 
usual wear and tear to which rented premises would be subject. The amount 
of these damages is the sum of five thousand and seventy-five dollars ($5,075). 

V. The claimant presented its claim for the damages to the War Department, 
and at the same time a claim for twelve thousand thirty-seven and 50/100 
($12,037.50) dollars rent for the use and occupation of its buildings. These 
claims were investigated, and the claim for damages was rejected for want of 
jurisdiction in the executive officers, and the claim for rent was adjusted and 
has been paid. Upon the disallowance of its claim for damages, the claimant 
had presented to Congress a bill (House bill No. 569, 45th Cong., 1st sess.) upon 
which no action has been taken. No payment or other cfeapensation has ever 
been made to the university for the damage to and destruction of its property. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Teste this 28th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

KAROLINE MULHAUPT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11737. Karoline Mulhaupt v. The United 

States. ] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for use and occupation of real estate at 
Memphis, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion was first transmitted-to this court on 



160 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

February 27, 1887, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- 
sentatives for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 
1883, commonly known as the Bowman Act. Under said reference the usual 
preliminary trial on loyalty was had, loyalty being found, but the case was not 
brought to trial on merits, as the court could not have entertained jurisdiction 
of the claim under the terms of the Bowman Act. 

On November 2, 1903, the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate, to wit: 

"A BILL For tfre relief of F. X. Mulhaupt and Caroline Mulhaupt, of Jackson County, 

Missouri. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to F. X. Mulhaupt 
and Caroline Mulhaupt, of Jackson County, Missouri, the sum of two thousand 
three hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies and 
occupation of real estate for the use of and used by the Federal forces during 
the late civil war." 

By resolution of the United States Senate said bill was transmitted to this 
court on January 5, 1905, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of 
section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the 
Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
October, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That she is now and at all times mentioned in her petition has been a citi- 
zen of the United States and is now a resident of Kansas City, Jackson County, 
State of Missouri ; that during the late civil war petitioner was a resident of 
the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee; that during said war petitioner was 
the owner of a certain lot in said city of Memphis, designated as lot No. 23 in 
block No. 10, in the Fort Pickering addition to said city, whch lot had a front- 
age of 25 feet and a depth of 170 feet; that upon said. lot there was situated a 
certain double tenement house of six rooms and a shed, and also a stable ; that 
in the month of June, 1862, the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took possession of said premises and continued to occupy the same 
until sometime in the month of April, 1866, a period of at least forty-five 
months ; that during said period said premises were reasonably worth a rental 
of $50 per month, being $25 for each tenement, making a total of $2,250 as the 
reasonable rental value of said premises while so occupied ; that during said 
occupation of said premises the house was greatly damaged and the fence 
around said lot, of the reasonable value of $100, was taken down and used 
for army purposes. Wherefore petitioner alleges that in justice the United 
States is indebted to petitioner in the sum of $2,350. 

The court, after considering the evidence and the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on each sid^, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Karoline Mulhaupt, was 
loyal to the Government of the United Statse during the war for the suppres- 
sion of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for 
military piirposes, from June, 1862, until sometime in April, 1S66, a period of 
forty-five months, a house and lot in the city of Memphis belonging to the claim- 
ant. The reasonable rental of said premises, together with the damages inci- 
dent to such occupation, was the sum tf one thousand three hundred and 
ninety-five dollars ($1,395), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this Sth day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 161 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

ROBERT BILLINGS ET AL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 13106, subnumbers 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 
318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 326. 328, 329, 330, 332. 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340. Portsmouth, N. H., Navy- 
Yard. Robert Billings, Franklin H. Bond, William H. Brown, William C. Bray, Isaac H. Parr, John 
Grant, Robert M. Ham, Henry H. Ham. Albert Hanscom, Thomas L. Jose, Michael E. Long, Prank 
E. Lawry, Brackett Lewis, James M. Jarvis, William W. Locke, Walter N. Meloon, George W. 
Muchmoire, Christopher Remick, Edwin D. Rand, Augustus S. Zara, Augustus Stevenson, George E. 
Stackpole, William H. Wilson. Benjamin P. Winn; Joseph A. Meloon and Charles O. Meloon, exec- 
utors of Nathaniel L. Meloon, deceased; Charles Stewart v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 1 

This is a claim for the payment to the above-named claimants for services rendered 
at the Portsmouth Navy- Yard, Portsmouth, N. H., between March 21, 1878, and 
September 22, 1882, for extra labor above the legal day of eight hours. 
I On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill 
in the following words: 

" [S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him 
in a petition to this Congress, dated January twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and 
seven, the amounts that may be found due to each of them, respectively, for extra 
labor, above the legal day of eight hours, while employed by the United States as 
workmen, laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, per- 
formed by them by reason of and under the provisions of circular numbered eight, 
issued by the Secretary of the Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and 
seventy-eight." 

Thereafter the claimants named above and each of them offered and filed their 
respective petitions herein in which they and each of them aver substantially as 
follows: 

That between March 21 , 1878, and the 21st clay of September, 1882, they and each 
of them were employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard, 
Boston, Mass.; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order 
referred to in claimants' petition known as circular No. 8, and set forth in Finding I 
herein. 

That during the six months in each year from the date of said order to the 21st 
day of September, 1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time they were 
so employed in excess of eight hours per day, and that they and each of them were 
paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during 
said period, and that they and each of them are entitled to the amounts set forth in 
their respective petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in 
excess of eight hours per day. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on the 13th day of 
February, 1908. 

Thomas Dawson, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Percy M. Cox, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. Between the 21st day of March, 1878, and the 22d day of September, 1882, the 
claimants herein, or their decedents, and each of them were in the employ of the 
United States in the navy-yard at Portsmouth, N. H., during which time the follow- 
ing order was in force: 

"Circular No. 8.] Navy Department, 

. ' "Washington, D. C, March 21, 1878. 

"The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular 
of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and 
shore stations: 

"The working hours will be — 

"From March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m.; from September 22 to 
March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m. ; with the usual intermission of one hour for 

dinner. - 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 11 



162 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



"The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men, 
and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten 
hours a day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages. 

"The commandants will notify the men employed, or to be employed, of these 
conditions, and they are at liberty to continue to accept employment under them or 
not. 

"R. W. Thompson, 

" Secretary of the Navy." 

II. Said claimants and each of them, or their decedents, while in the employ of 
the United States, as aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set oppo- 
site their respective names in excess of eight hours a day and at the wages stated, 
to wit: 



Name of claimant. 



Robert B. Billings 

Do 

Do 

Do 

Franklin H. Bond. 

Do 

Do 

William H. Brpwn 
William C. Bray.-. 

Do 

Do 

Isaac H. Farr 

Do 

Do 

John Grant 

Do 

Do 

Robert M. Ham... 

Do 

Henry M. Ham 

Do 

Albert Hanscom . . 

Do 

James M. Jarvis... 
Thomas L. Jose 

Do 

Do '. 



Number j Rate 
of hours. | per day. 



4324 

332± I 
Gift 

4324/ 

782 1 
3fi 

777g ; 

3734 ' 

377*. 
433* 
S17i 
252 ! 

2054 ! 

3J 
3Ui B J 

i<so'"j 

293 a,; 

, 112| ! 
136 I 
31 

, OllfJ 
2S85", 
628jVi 
596f4 



$2.76 
1.76 
3.00 
2.00 
2.00 
1.76 
2.50 
3.26 
2.76 
1.76 
3.00 
3.26 
3.50 
3.76 
3.00 
3.50 
3.24 
1.76 
2.26 
2.50 
3.00 
2.26 
2.00 
3.00 
1.76 
2.00 
2.26 



Name of claimant. 



Number 
of hours. 



Michael E. Long 

Do 

Frank E. La wry 

Do .' 

Brackett Lewis 

William W. Locke 

Walter N. Meloon 

George W. Muchmore 

Do 

Christopher Remick 

Edwin D. Rand 

Do 

Do 

Augustus Stevenson 

George E. Stackpoie 

William H. Wilson 

Benjamin F. Winn 

Augustus S. Zara 

J oseph|A. M eloon and Charles 
O. Meloon, executors of 
Nathaniel L. Meloon, de- 
ceased 

Do 

Charles Stewart 

Do •. 

Do 



564f 
304± 
2574. 
23 
241 
609| 
444| 
227f 
1,148 
4142 

14A 

347f 
3684 

1, 46S& 
481 T 7 „ 
H70§" 
599i 

1,719 



.219 

35 

9311 

34 



Rate per 
day. 



$2.76 
3.00 
2.26 
2.00 
1.50 
3.00 
3.00 
3.26 
5.00 
2.26 
3.24 
3.50 
3.00 
5.00 
3.00 
1.76 
3.00 
2.00 



3.00 
3.24 
3.00 
2.00 
1.76 



a Less than 8 hours a day. 



III. If it is considered that eight hours constituted a day's work under the order 
of the Secretary of the Navy, as aforesaid, during the period from March 21, 1878, to 
September 22, 1882, then the claimants and each of them, or their decedents, have 
been underpaid the sums set opposite their respective names, as follows: 

Robert B. Billings, two hundred and seventy-four dollars and eighty-three cents 
($274.83); 

Franklin H. Bond, two hundred and ninety-one dollars and forty cents ($291.40) 

William H. Brown, three hundred and sixteen dollars and sixty-six cents ($316.66) 

William C. Bray, two hundred and seventy-one dollars and fifteen cents ($271.15) 

Isaac H. Farr, four hundred and thirty-three dollars and ninety-nine cents ($433.99) 

John Grant, five hundred and nineteen dollars and seventy-seven cents ($519.77) 

Robert M. Ham, one hundred and nineteen dollars and thirty-six cents ($119.36) 

Henry H. Ham, five hundred and nine dollars and eight cents ($509.08); 

Albert Hanscom, forty-six dollars and seventeen cents ($46.17); 

James M. Jarvis, three hundred and seventy-nine dollars and thirty-four cents 
($379.34); 

Thomas L. Jose, three hundred and eighty-eight dollars and sixty -six cents ($388.66) ; 

Michael E. Long, three hundred and eight dollars and ninety cents ($308.90); 

Frank E. Lawry, seventy-eight dollars and forty-nine cents ($78.49); 

Brackett Lewis, forty-five dollars and eighteen cents ($45.18); 

William W. Locke, two hundred and twenty-eight dollars and fifty-six cents' 
($228.56); 

Walter N. Meloon, one hundred and sixty-six dollars and eighty-one cents ($166.81) ; 

George W. Muchmore, eight hundred and ten dollars and thirty-four cents 
($810.34); 

Christopher Remick, one hundred and seventeen dollars and sixteen cents 
($117.16); 

Edwin D. Rand, two hundred and ninety-five dollars and eighty-nine cents ($295. 89) ; 






ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 163 

Augustus Stevenson, nine hundred and seventeen dollars and sixty cents ($917.60); 

George E. Stackpole, one hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents ($180.60); 

William H. Wilson, one hundred and ninety-one dollars and fiftv-five cents 
($191.55); 

Benjamin F. Winn, two hundred and twenty-tour dollars and ninety cents ($224.90) ; 

Augustus S. Zara, four hundred and twenty-nine dollars and seventv-five cents 
($429:75); 

Joseph A. Meloon and Charles 0. Meloon, executors of Nathaniel L. Meloon, 
deceased, four hundred and seventy-one dollars and thirty cents ($471.30); 

Charles Stewart three hundred and forty-nine dollars and ninety cents ($349.90). 

IV. The claims of the several individuals hereinbefore mentioned, or either of 
them, were never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to 
the presentation thereof to Congress and reference to this court as hereinbefore set 
forth in the statement of the case, nor is any competent evidence adduced to show 
why said claimants did not earlier prosecute their said claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 20, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

NEW YORK. 
BENJAMIN FENTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12636. Benjamin Fenton, surviving partner of 
firm of Fenton & Co., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On June 13, 1906, Senate bill No. 6263, Fifty-ninth Congress, was referred to 
this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact in 
accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and 
commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of Benjamin Fenton. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Benjamin Fenton, 
of the city of Buffalo, county of Erie, State of New York, surviving partner 
of Fenton and Brother, the sum of ten thousand two hundred and fifty-one dol- 
lars, in full compensation for the use and occupation of the premises known as 
lot numbered fifty -nine in the navy-yard subdivision of Memphis, Tennessee, by 
United States military forces from the sixth day of June, eighteen hundred and 
sixty-two, until the twentieth day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, 
being for that period of the occupation of said premises for which no payment 
has heretofore been made by the United States." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of 
October, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant 
Attorney-General, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of 
the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Buffalo, 
State of New York ; that before, during, and after the late civil war petitioner 
was a member of the firm or copartnership of Fenton & Bro., which said firm 
or copartnership consisted of petitioner and his brother, D. W. Fenton; that 
after said war said firm or copartnership was dissolved ; that petitioner is the 
surviving partner of said firm, his said brother having departed this life. 

That throughout said war said D. W. Fenton was a citizen of the United 
States, residing in the State of New York ; that during said war petitioner was 
a citizen of the United States, residing during a portion of said war in the city 
of Memphis, State of Tennessee, and during a portion of said war in the State 
of New York. 

That prior to said war said firm of Fenton & Bro. became the owner of a 
leasehold estate in certain lands in said city of Memphis, described as lot No. 



164 ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 

59, in the navy-yard subdivision, which leasehold estate did not terminate until 
many years after the close of said war ; that upon said land was situate a cer- 
tain substantial brick building of large size, used before and during the early 
part of said war as a cotton-seed oil mill. 

That immediately upon the occupation of said city of Memphis by United 
States military forces on June 6, 1862, said military forces took possession of 
said premises and used and occupied the same for military purposes until 
September 30, 1868 ; that during said period of use and occupation the same 
were reasonably and fairly worth an annual rental of not less than $2,500 ; 
that in 1870 petitioner and his then partner, said D. W. Fenton, presented a 
claim for compensation for said use and occupation, which claim was con- 
sidered by the War and Treasury Departments, as the result of which con- 
sideration it was held that payment could be made for that portion of said 
occupation occurring after August 20, 1866, and payment for said occupation 
from August 20, 1866, till and including September 30, 1868, was accordingly 
made at the rate of $2,500 per annum ; that so much of said claim as was for 
compensation for use and occupation of said premises from June 6, 1862, till 
and including August 20, 1866, was rejected for lack of jurisdiction in the 
Executive Departments; that throughout the entire period of said use and 
occupation said firm of Fenton & Bro. continued to pay to the city of Memphis 
(owner of said land) the annual rental agreed upon in the original lease made 
by said city. 

That in view of the above-stated facts petitioner alleges that in reason and in 
justice the United States Government is indebted to him, as surviving partner 
of said firm, as follows, to wit : 

To use and occupation of lot No. 59 in the navy-yard subdivision of 
the city of Memphis, Tenn., from June 6, 1862, until and including 
August 20, 1866, a period of four years and seventy-five days, at 
an annual rental of $2,500, amounting to , $10, 520. 66 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument* 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The petitioner, Benjamin Fenton, is a citizen of the United States, resid- 
ing in the city of Buffalo, N. Y. He is the surviving member of the firm or 
partnership of Fenton & Co., which was composed of petitioner and his brother, 
David W. Fenton, who departed this life in 1899. 

Throughout the civil war said Benjamin Fenton and said David W. Fenton 
remained loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During and for a considerable period before and after said war the city 
of Memphis was the owner in fee simple, subject to a certain mortgage and 
also subject to certain leases covering various lots, of a certain tract of land 
situate within said city, commonly known as the " navy-yard." This land 
was originally donated by said city to the United States as a navy-yard, but 
prior to the war and by act of Congress approved August 5, 1854 (10 Stat. L., 
586), said land was ceded by the United States to said city, after which cession 
it was subdivided by the city into lots and blocks, divided by streets. Only a 
portion of said entire tract is in any way involved in this claim, the findings 
herein made relating only to that portion thereof embraced in the subject-mat- 
ter of this claim. 

During said war the firm of Fenton & Co., composed of Benjamin Fenton and 
David W. Fenton, were the owners of a leasehold estate in the premises known 
as lot No. 59 in the subdivision of the city of Memphis, Tenn., known as the 
navy-yard, holding said estate under assignments of a certain lease made in 
1858 by said city of Memphis, the owner of said land. On June 6, 1862, the 
United States military forces took possession of said premises and continued 
to occupy the same until and including August 20, 1S66, for military purposes. 
During said occupation the said firm of Fenton & Co. continued to pay to the 
city of Memphis' the rental specified in the original lease executed by the city. 

The reasonable rental value of said premises from and including June 6, 1862, 
until and including August 20, 1866, was $2,500 per annum, amounting to the 
sum of ten thousand five hundred and twenty dollars and sixty-six cents 
($10,520.66). It does not appear that payment has been made for any part 
thereof. 

III. In 1870 the said firm of Fenton & Co. applied to the War Department 
for compensation for the occupation of said premises, and payment was made 
by the United States for that portion of said occupation of said premises occur- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 165 

ring after August 20, 1S66. Said claim was rejected by the accounting officers 
so far as it covered the occupation of said premises prior to August 20, 1866, 
for lack of jurisdiction in said officers. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ISABELLA G. FRANCIS, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11517. Isabella G. Francis, administratrix of the 
estate of Roger A. Francis, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in this case for losses alleged to have been suffered by the claim- 
ant's decedent by the wrongful acts of the officers and agents of the United 
States in refusing to accept 500,000 yards "sky-blue kerseys, army standard," 
manufactured by claimant's decedent under a contract between him and the 
United States, as hereinafter stated, was transmitted to the court on March 2, 
1891, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1SS3, and petition was filed 
in said court and docketed as No. S502, but on motion of the defendants the 
petition was dismissed June 1, 1903, for want of jurisdiction, no suit having 
been brought thereon within six years, as required by Revised Statutes, section 
1069, and the claim was therefore barred under the provisions of section 3 of 
said act of March 3, 1S83. 

Thereafter, on April 19, 1904, a bill was introduced into the United States 
Senate authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the legal repre- 
sentatives of the estate of Roger A. Francis, deceased, late of the State of New 
York, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum 
of $155,979.54, in full compensation for loss of profits and expenses suffered by 
him in reference to cloths he had contracted, during the war of the rebellion, 
to furnish to the United States, but was not permitted to furnish, which bill 
was, on April 26, 1904, referred to the court by resolution of the United States 
Senate under the provisions of the act of March 3, 18S7, known as the Tucker 
Act. 

Under this last reference Isabella G. Francis, administratrix of the estate 
of said Roger A. Francis, deceased, appeared and filed her petition herein, 
averring, among other things, in substance, that she is the widow and admin- 
istratrix of the estate of the late Roger A. Francis, who was during the late civil 
war a resident of the State of New York and was during said period loyal to the 
Government of the United States; that on March 11, 1S65, the claimant's de- 
cedent entered into a contract with the United States through C. W. Moulton, de- 
pot quartermaster at Cincinnati, Ohio, whereby he agreed to furnish to the United 
States 500,000 yards of sky-blue kerseys, " army standard." at $1.49f per yard, 
to be delivered to the United States inspection depot in said city within three 
months from date of award in equal monthly deliveries; that pursuant to said 
contract said Francis did deliver said 500,000 yards of cloth, which was inspected 
by the officers and agents of the United States and by them wrongfully rejected, 
whereby and by reason whereof said Francis was damaged in the sum of 
$155,979.54, of which sum $125,988.54 was for loss of profits under said contract 
and the residue for actual expenses incurred, none of which has been paid and 
no offset exists against the same. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 10th day of January, 1905. 

W. H. Robeson, esq., C. M. Carter, esq., and E. F. Colladay appeared for the 
claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Louis A. Pradt, Assistant Attorney- 
Gereral, with whom was associated Philip M. Ashford esq., his assistant 
and under his direction, appeared in behalf of the United States, and the court, 
having heard the argument of counsel on both sides, and considered their briefs 
and the evidence adduced in said cause, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, Isabella G. Francis, is the duly qualified administratrix of 
the estate of Roger A. Francis, deceased, late of New York, who was loyal to 
the Government of the United States during the war for the ^suppression of the 
rebellion. 



166 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. February 27, 1865, the following advertisement for proposals was issued : 

" Office Chief Quaetp:emaster, 

" Cincirmati, February 21, 1865. 

" Proposals invited by the undersigned until Friday, March 10, 1865, 12 
o'clock m., for furnishing this Department with sky-blue kerseys, army stand- 
ard ; D. B. uniform cloth, army standard, to be delivered free of charge at the 
United States inspection warehouse in this city in good, new packages. 

" Parties offering goods should make separate proposals of each article offered 
and must distinctly state in their bids the quantity they propose to furnish 
and conform to the terms of this advertisement, a copy of which should accom- 
pany each proposal. 

" Standard samples of the articles required may be seen at the office of cloth- 
ing and equipage in this city. Samples, when submitted, must be numbered 
and marked to correspond with the proposal, and these parties thereto shall 
guarantee that the goods shall be in every respect equal to the army standard ; 
otherwise, the proposal will not be considered. 

"A guaranty, signed by two responsible persons, must accompany each bid, 
guaranteeing that the bidder will supply the articles awarded to him under his 
proposal. 

" The bids will be open on Friday, March 10, 1865, at 12 o'clock m., at this 
office, and bidders are requested to be present. 

" Awards will be made on Saturday, March 11, 1865. 

" Bonds will be required that the contract be faithfully fulfilled. 

" Telegrams relating to proposals will not be noticed. 

" Blank forms of proposals, contracts, and bonds, may be obtained at this 
office. 

" The right to reject any bid deemed unreasonable is reserved. 

" Endorse envelopes ' Proposals for ' [here insert the name of the articles 
offered], and address 

" C. W. Moulton, 

"Depot Quartermaster." 

III. In response to said advertisement the claimant's decedent filed with said 
depot quartermaster a bid agreeing to furnish 500,000 yards of said sky-blue 
kerseys, " army standard," at the price of $1.49f per yard, which said bid was 
accepted by the said depot quartermaster and said Francis notified thereof, and 
he at once contracted with a number of manufacturers to manufacture the 
quality and kind of goods so contracted to be furnished by him. 

IV. On March 26, 1865, after the manufacture of said goods as aforesaid had 
been contracted for by said Francis, and while they were then in process of 
manufacture, said depot quartermaster forwarded to said Francis a contract, 
as follows : 

" Quartermaster-General's Office. May 18, 1865. 
"Articles of agreement made and entered into on the eleventh day of March, 

A. D. one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, between Colonel C. W. 

Moulton, quartermaster, U. S. Army, of the first part, and R. A. Francis, of 

New York City, of the second part. 

" This agreement witnesseth, That the said Colonel C. W. Moulton, quarter- 
master, U. S. Army, for and on behalf of the United States of America, and the 
said R. A. Francis, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, have 
covenanted and agreed, and by these presents do mutually covenant and agree, 
to and with each other as follows, to wit : 

" First. That the said R. A. Francis, of the second part, shall have manufac- 
tured and delivered at the United States depot of army clothing and equipage, 
in Cincinnati, Ohio, by or before the tenth day of June next, the following 
articles, to wit : 

" Five hundred thousand (500,000) yards of sky-blue kersey, army standard. 

" Second. It is agreed that all the above-named articles shall be according to 
the army standard, as per specifications hereunto attached, marked specifica- 
tions for sky-blue kersey, and made a part hereof, and to be delivered at the 
U. S. inspection depot in Cincinnati, Ohio, in good merchantable packages. 

"Third. It is agreed that the deliveries of the above-named articles shall and 
will be made as follows: The contract to be completed within three (3) months 
from date of award, in equal monthly deliveries ; in case of failure on the part 
of the party of the second part to deliver the articles within the time and in 
the manner specified in this agreement, the party of the first part is authorized 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 167 

to make good the deficiency by purchase in the open market, at the expense of 
the said party of the second part. 

" Fourth. It is agreed that the articles upon being delivered shall be exam- 
ined and inspected without unnecessary delay by a person or persons appointed 
by the United States, and after such inspectors shall have certified that they 
are in all respects as contracted for. and fully equal to the sample aforesaid, 
they shall be received and become the property of the United States; and all 
such articles as may be condemned and rejected by said inspector shall be 
removed from the depot within six days after the contractor shall have been 
notified of said rejection. 

" Fifth. It is agreed that for and in consideration of the faithful fulfillment 
of the above stipulations in all their parts the party of the first part agrees that 
the party of the second part shall be paid by the United States at the office of 
army clothing and equipage, Cincinnati, Ohio, as follows, viz: 

"At one dollar and forty-nine and five-eighths cents ($1.49f ) for each yard of 
sky-blue kersey, army standard. To be delivered as herein stated. Payment to 
be made for each delivery, should Congress make an appropriation for that 
purpose, or as soon thereafter as funds may be received, withholding 10 per 
cent from each payment until the whole quantity shall have been delivered, and 
the contract be completed ; and in the event of defalcation or nonfulfillment 
thereof in any of its parts, on the part of the party of the second part, said 10 
per cent shall be, and is hereby, forfeited to the United States. 

" Sixth. It is further agreed, and expressly conditioned, that no Member of 
Congress is, or shall be, admitted to any share or part of this contract or agree- 
ment or to any benefit to arise therefrom ; that it is not transferable without 
the consent of the proper authority ; that at any sale, ransfer, or assignment 
of it, without such consent having been obtained (except under process of law), 
shall and will be considered an abandonment of it, and that the said party of 
the second part, his or their securities, be held responsible for all loss, delay, or 
damage to the United States which may arise from such abandonment. 

" In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals in 
quintuplicate this eleventh day of March, 1865. 

" Sealed and delivered in the presence of — 

" C. W. Moulton, 

"Depot Quartermaster. 
" James Talcott. 
" John J. Masserve. 

"(as to R. A. Francis). 

" Specification of 3/4 sky-blue kersey, array standard. 

" The following specifications govern the quality and texture of 3/4 sky-blue 
kersey, army standard, viz : 

" To be of pure wool, free from shoddy, and wool dyed sky-blue color, indigo 
dye. 

" Width to be not less than twenty-seven (27) inches. 

" There must be thirty-four (34) filling threads to the inch, and in the chain 
forty (40). 

" Weight per lineal yard must be eleven (11) ounces. 

" One square inch of cloth must resist a strain of ninety (90) pounds length- 
wise, fifty-five (55) pounds crosswise, and seventy-five (75) pounds diagonally. 

" To be free from holes, thoroughly cleaned, and manufactured in a workman- 
like manner."' 

V. The requirements contained in said specifications, to wit : " That one square 
inch of cloth must resist a strain of ninety (90) pounds lengthwise, fifty-five 
(55) pounds crosswise, and seventy-five (75) pounds diagonally," were not con- 
tained in the advertisement for proposals, nor were the same communicated to 
the said Francis at the time of his bid, nor were the same known to him until 
he received the contract about March 25, 1365, for his signature, with said 
specification attached thereto. 

Prior to March 11, 1865, when the award was made to him as aforesaid, there 
were no such specifications attached by the departmental authorities to con- 
tracts for the manufacture of sky-blue kerseys, " army standard," nor does it 
appear that said specifications were ever attached to any other contract than 
the one made with said Francis and that with S. & H. Sayles, with whom a 
contract was entered into on the same day. 

VI. Early in 1864, upon the urgent representations of officers, inspectors, and 
manufacturers made to the Quartermaster at Washington, to the effect that 
" army standard " for sky-blue kerseys and other army cloths was not suffi- 
ciently definite, careful inquiry and investigation was made by Colonel Cross- 



168 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

man, then assistant quartermaster-general, with a view to fixing a more definite 
standard. And for that purpose communications were sent out in circular form 
to manufacturers, proposing the adoption of certain specifications with respect 
to various textile fabrics of wool. These communications were delivered to 
manufacturers and replies received, but to what manufacturers they were sent 
and what their replies were does not appear. March 28, 1864, Colonel Orossman, 
in a letter addressed from the quartermaster's department at Philadelphia to 
the Quartermaster-General at Washington, defined " army standard " for sky- 
blue kerseys as set forth in the specifications- attached to the contract herein- 
before set out. And on December 9, 1864, testing machines designed to test 
said cloth were shipped to Colonel McKim, depot quartermaster at Cincinnati, 
Ohio, Colonel Biggs, depot quartermaster at Philadelphia, Pa., and General 
Vinton, depot quartermaster at New York, but it does not appear that the 
claimant's decedent was advised thereof prior to the making and acceptance of 
his bid as aforesaid. 

VII. Early in May, 1865, the claimant's decedent furnished and delivered 
250,000 yards of said kerseys, " army standard." at Cincinnati in accordance 
with said contract, and a portion of them were inspected and rejected as not 
being equal in strength to the tensile test as required by said specifications, of 
which the claimant's decedent was notified, and the further manufacture of 
said goods was temporarily suspended. At the instance of said Francis a rein- 
spection of the goods was had, and upon his application on May 11, 1865, said 
Moulton, depot quartermaster, by a written order directed the inspectors to 
receive the goods that were equal to certain samples that were presented by 
said Francis, which said samples were taken from the goods offered by said 
Francis under his contract, which order was communicated to said Francis and 
the goods which had theretofore been inspected and rejected were reinspected 
pursuant to said order, and 66,814^ yards were accepted and as payment was 
made therefor to said Francis in the sum of $89,973.72, being the contract price 
for said goods, less 10 per cent reserved according to the custom of the 
Department. 

VIII. The reinspection of said cloth was made, pursuant to said order of the 
depot quartermaster, which order was as follows: 





[Card containing 4 samples.] 














' No. 1. 


No. 2. 


NO. 3. 


No. 4. 






57 63 
56 59 


69 
52 


79 






53 













" The samples on this card have all the requisite specifications except in 
their strength. Such being the case, the inspectors are instructed to receive 
all kerseys presented that are equal thereto. 

" L. M. Brown, 
" Supervising Inspector. 

" Chief Quartermaster's Office. 

" Cincinnati, May 11. 1865. 
"Approved. 

" C. W. Moulton, 

" Depot Quartermaster. 
" (Approved copy. C. W. Moulton, depot quartermaster.)" 

IX. After the promulgation of said order modifying the tensile strength so 
required by the specifications set forth in the contract, said Francis resumed 
the manufacture of said cloth and completed and caused to be delivered at 
Cincinnati, as provided by his contract so modified by said order, the remain- 
ing 250,000 yards of said cloth. 

Said order was subsequently recinded by the Quartermaster-General, but 
before notice thereof to said Francis the residue of said cloth had been manu- 
factured and delivered by him at Cincinnati. The cloth so manufactured and 
delivered, some of which had theretofore been accepted and paid for as afore- 
said, was ordered by the Quartermaster-General to be reinspected by Col. 
George E. Rutherford, Quartermaster's Department, which was done, and the 
same was rejected as not in conformity with the specifications set forth in the 
contract. The remaining portion of said 500,000 yards of cloth so delivered as 
aforesaid was inspected under the order of the Quartermaster-General, and 
the entire 500,000 yards so delivered by said Francis was rejected as not in 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 169 

conformity with the tensile strength required by the specifications set forth in 
the contract. Nor does it appear that said cloth was in conformity with the 
tensile strength prescribed by said specifications. 

X. After the rejection of the cloth as aforesaid said Francis was directed to 
repay to the United States said sum of $89,973.72, which had theretofore been 
paid to him for the 66,814i yards of said goods which had been accepted by 
the officers of the United States, as set forth in Finding VII, and being a party 
to other contracts with the United States for the manufacture of other articles, 
vouchers for which were withheld until such repayment could be made, the 
claimant under protest repaid the said sum. 

XI. As before found, it does not appear that other contracts with the Gov- 
ernment at about the same time were required to furnish cloth of the tensile 
strength provided for in the contract of said Francis, except in the case of 
S. & H. Sayles, as aforesaid, who it appears furnished under their contract 
with the Government 250,000 yards of the like quality of goods in response to 
the same advertisement, which said goods were rejected for the like reason 
that the cloth of the claimant was rejected. Said S. & H. Sayles subsequently 
presented a claim to Congress for their losses growing out of the rejection of 
the goods furnished by them, and as shown by 16 Statutes at Large, 613, an 
appropriation was made in their favor for the sum of $88,688.15. 

XII. The manufacture of sky-blue kerseys, " army standard," in accordance 
with the tensile strength required by the specifications set forth in the con- 
tract, was unusual and practically impossible of compliance. To liave manu- 
factured the cloth in conformity therewith would have necessitated the varying 
of the specifications in other respects, to wit: It would have required more 
than 34 filling and 40 chain threads to the inch, and would have exceeded in 
weight 11 ounces per linear yard, unless the threads, both for the filling and 
the chain, had been so twisted or enlarged as to attain the desired tensile 
strength, in either of which cases the cloth would have been rough for wearing 
purposes, and would then have exceeded in weight 11 ounces per linear yard. 

The goods furnished by said Francis under his contract were equal to the 
quality of kerseys known as " army standard " prior to the execution of the 
contract of said Francis, and were of the quality of " army standard " then 
recognized and understood among the manufacturers thereof. 

XIII. The cost of manufacture and the expenses necessarily incurred in the 
delivery of said 500,000 yards of cloth at the inspection depot in Cincinnati 
was $622,136.46, and at the contract price of said goods so delivered said 
Francis would have received therefor $748,125, being a profit of $125,98S.54. 

The proportionate amount of profit on the same basis on the 66,S14i yards 
of cloth which were accepted and paid for as set forth in Finding VII, and 
subsequently rejected, would be $16,835.66. 

After the rejection of the said 500,000 yards of cloth said Francis, to induce 
the manufacturers to take the goods back and release him from any further 
payment therefor, paid them the sum of $5,000, and in addition thereto incurred 
the expense or redelivering said cloth to said manufacturers as follows : 
Freight, returning goods to manufacturers, $7,480; for return transportation 
and insurance, $2,805.47; cartage, storage, and labor, $1,900, which, together 
with the said $5,000 paid to the manufacturers to take the goods back as 
aforesaid, amounts in the aggregate to $17,185.47. 

No payment appears to have been made to the claimant either by way of 
profits or expenses lost and incurred on account of said rejection of said goods 
as aforesaid. 

XIV. If the Congress should determine that •the claimant was entitled to the 
prospective profits on the entire contract plus the expense of returning the 
goods to the manufacturers, the total sum would be $143,174.01. 

If the Congress should determine that profits should be paid only on the 
66,814^ yards, together with a proportionate share of the expenses incurred in 
returning the goods to the manufacturer, the total amount would be $19,132.13. 

XV. The claim in this case appears to have arisen out of a breach of con- 
tract. The claim was first presented to the War Department soon after it 
arose, and after investigation was finally rejected by that Department in the 
year 1867. No action was brought on the claim in court seeking a judgment 
until after the lapse of six years from the time the claim first accrued or from 
the date of its rejection by said War Department. Nor does it appear that any 
further efforts were made to collect said claim until the same was referred 
to the Court of Claims in 1891 under the provisions of the act Of March 3, 18S3, 
known ' as the Bowman Act, when the case was. on the defendant's motion, 
dismissed, because, being founded upon a contract, was barred under Revised 



170 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statutes, section 1069. The claim was thereafter referred to the court in 1904 
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ALBERT F. TUCKER AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10892. Albert F. Tucker, Edward M. Tucker, 
Mary O. Garrison, and Ada A. Case v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 23d day of June, 1902, 
by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 4972, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of F. Z. Tucker. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the iegal representatives of 
the late F. Z. Tucker, of the State of New York, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of fourteen thousand four hundred and 
seventeen dollars and eighty-four cents, being the amount ascertained by the 
naval board which reported to the Thirty-ninth Congress, first session, to be 
due to the said F. Z. Tucker for extra work done by him for the Government on 
the hull of the war vessel Mendota: Provided, That the above-mentioned sum 
be accepted as in full payment of all claims of the said estate against the 
United States by reason of said extra work." 

The claimants appeared and filed their amended petition in this court Febru- 
ary 19, 1903, in which they make the following allegations : 

First. That they are each of them citizens and residents of the United States, 
of lawful age, and resident at Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and were at 
all times loyal to the Government. 

Second. That Farnham Z. Tucker, their father, was also a citizen of the 
United States, and was loyal to the United States Government at all times. 

Third. That Farnham Z. Tucker died on the 17th day of March, 18S0, leaving 
a will by which he left all his property to his wife, Mrs. Mary A. Tucker, who, 
on the 29th day of July, 18S8, died intestate as to this claim hereafter men- 
tioned, and that the petitioners are children of said Farnham Z. Tucker and 
Mary A. Tucker. 

Fourth. That on the 9th day of September, 1862, sad Farnham Z. Tucker 
entered into a contract with the United States to build the hull of the double- 
ender Mendota. And that thereafter the said double-en der Mendota was built 
by said Farnham Z. Tucker, and was delivered over to the United States Gov- 
ernment. That tbereafter the contract price of $75,000 for said vessel was paid, 
but that by reason of extra work done upon the said vessel by order of the 
officials representing the Government of the United States, and by reason of 
great delays caused by the action of the United States Government, the cost of 
said vessel largely exceeded such payments, and the said Farnham Z. Tucker 
was in justice entitled to receive from the Government of the United States a 
large amount of money over and above the said contract price. That the said 
Farnham Z. Tucker, together with other persons, who had similar claims, made 
claim against the United States for the payment of such sums as were due to 
them. That in the year 1865, by authority of the United States, the Secretary 
of the Navy organized a board, thereafter called the Selfridge Board, which 
board was directed to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war 
and -steam machinery contracted for by the Government of the United States 
in 1862-63 cost the contractors over and above the contract price, and the allow- 
ances for extra work. That thereafter the said Selfridge Board made its 
report, in and by which it reported that there should be awarded to the said 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 171 

Famhain Z. Tucker the sum of $14,473.84 for such extra work and extra cost 
in building the said double-euder Mendota. 

That the total cost of said vessel was $92,475.70, and the contract price being 
$75,000, the vessel cost said Tucker $17,475.70 more than he was paid for her. 

That claim for the payment of what was due him was continually urged upon 
the Government of the United States by the said Farnham Z. Tucker during 
his life, and since then by his children, but that the same has never been paid. 

That on the 17th of June, 1902, the Senate of the United States passed a reso- 
lution, a copy of which is hereto annexed, by which resolution the claim above 
mentioned, with others, was referred to this honorable court. That the claim- 
ants above named are the sole owners and holders of the above claim against 
the United States. 

Fifth. That nothing whatever has been paid on account of such extra cost 
or the award of the said Selfridge Board in favor of the said claim above men- 
tioned, and that the whole of such sum so awarded is due to these claimants. 

Wherefore, the petitioners claim from the United States the said sum of 
$17,475.70 for such extra cost, or if that sum is not awarded, then $14,473.84, 
which was the award of the Selfridge Board, and pray that this sum may be 
adjudged as due to the petitioners herein from the United States Government,, 
and that this court would report to the Senate of the United States its findings,, 
as requested by the resolution above named. And the petitioners pray for such 
other and further relief as may be equitable and just. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
January, 1905. Mrs. Ellen S. Mussey and Robert D. Benedict, esq., appeared 
for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his 
assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on each side, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimants, Albert F. Tucker, Edward M. Tucker, Mary C. Garrison,, 
and Ada C. Case, are citizens and residents of the United States, resident in 
Brooklyn, N. T., and children of Farnham Z. Tucker, deceased, who was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. 

II. Farnham Z. Tucker on the 9th September, 1862, entered into a contract 
with the Navy Department to build the hull of the double-ender war vessel 
Mendota. He performed his contract by completing the vessel and delivering 
her to the Navy Department within the time specified in the contract, and the 
defendants, by their proper officers, paid to him the contract price, $75,000. 

III. During the construction of the hull of such vessel there were alterations 
and additions ordered by the naval constructors of the United States not 
required by the contract, which were made and furnished by the contractor; 
but after the hull had been delivered to the defendants it was found by the 
officers in charge that there were further alterations and additions which were 
necessary or desirable, and the hull was again placed in the dock and claimant 
was requested to and did render further services and supplied further materials 
in improving and perfecting the hull of the vessel. 

IV. Shortly after the rendition of such services the claimant presented bills 
to the Navy Department for such extra services and materials. These bills 
not having been acted upon by the Navy Department and having been allowed 
only in part to the extent of $2,991.86, claimant, with other contractors of 
naval vessels, presented his claim to the Congress of the United States. On 
the 9th March, 1865, the Senate of the United States passed the following reso- 
lution : 

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board 
of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into 
and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted 
for by the Department in the years of 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over 
and above the contract f>rice and allowance for extra work, and report the same 
to the Senate next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the 
Department to be considered." 

The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore 
Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldredge, commonly known 
as the " Selfridge Board." 



172 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

V. The claims of the contractor were transmitted to the Selfridge Board, and 
he appeared before the Board and testified in person as to the services which he 
had rendered, the authority by which changes and alterations were made, the 
value of the same, etc. 

VI. The Selfridge Board convened at the navy-yard, New York, June 5, 1865, 
and continued their investigation of claims without intermission, hearing testi- 
mony and examining contractors and claims, until December 23, 1865, and 
shortly thereafter submitted their report to the Secreary of the Navy, by whom 
it was transmitted to the Senate on the 30th January, 1866. 

VII. The total amount of the bills submitted to the Navy Department by the 
•claimant was $22,406.85, but the resolution of the Senate before quoted restricted 
the examination and computations of the Selfridge Board to inquiring into 
and determining how much the vessels contracted for by the Navy Department 
" cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra 
work." The Board accordingly found from their investigations that the addi- 
tional cost to the contractor of the Mendota over and above the contract price 
was $17,465.70, from which the Board deducted $2,991.86, which had been 
allowed by the Navy Department on a bill rendered for extra work and mate- 
rials, leaving as the additional cost of the vessel " over and above the contract 
price and allowance for extra work " the sum of $14,473.84. 

VIII. No evidence either to confirm or impeach the report or conclusions of 
the Selfridge Board has been produced or offered by either party in this case. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 9, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Cleric Court of Claims. 

MARIE L. HERMANCE, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, 10890. Marie L. Hermance, administratrix of Jeremiah 
Simonson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This case was sent to this court under resolution of the United States Sen- 
ate dated June 17, 1902, referring, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act, a bill providing for the payment of $16,441.81 to the legal rep- 
resentatives of Jeremiah Simonson for work and material ' furnished in the 
construction of the U. S. S. Chenango. 

On a preliminary inquiry the claimant's decedent, Jeremiah Simonson, was 
found to have been loyal to the Government of the United States during the 
late civil war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. 

Richard R. McMahon appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Felix Brannigan, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition, in which she avers substan- 
tially as follows : 

That she is a citizen of the United States and the duly appointed administra- 
trix of Jeremiah Simonson, deceased. That on September 9, 1862, said decedent 
entered into a contract with John Lenthall, Chief of the Bureau of Construc- 
tion and Repair of the Navy Department, to construct a wooden hull for the 
United States double-ender Chenango, within -a period of one hundred and 
twenty-six days from the date of contract, at an aggregate price of $75,000. 

The contractor, who had other business which would pay much better, hesi- 
tated to enter into the contract, but it was pressed by the Government and 
urged very strenuously as a matter of patriotism, and he therefore made it 
reluctantly. 

The contract provided that in the event of failure qn the part of the con- 
tractor to fulfill the stipulations thereof or have the vessel launched or delivered 
at the premises of the contractors for the machinery, or ready for sea at the 
stipulated time, he should forfeit $50 per day for each day delayed, and in 
addition the Navy Department was authorized to take charge and complete 
the construction of the vessel, and any excess of cost was to be at the expense 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 17 3 

of the contractor, provided the delay was not occasioned by an unavoidable 
accident or the action of the Navy Department. 

The contractor was ready to launch the hull at the stipulated time, January 
33, 1S63, but as he was required by the terms of the contract "to do all the 
carpenter work necessary in connection with the steam machinery," and the 
engine builders were not ready to put in the boilers, the hull was detained on 
the ways by the Government, under orders of United States Naval Constructor 
and Inspector of Hulls S. M. Pook, and owing to these causes the launching was 
delayed until March 19, 1863. 

Tour petitioner further represents that as the contract provided that the hull, 
equipments, and outfits should be complete and satisfactory to the Navy De- 
partment before final payment was made, the work of the contractor was en- 
tirely satisfactory to the Department, since no part of the contract price was 
withheld, but payment was made in full. 

The actual cost to the contractor to build the hull, as shown by the items 
and figures entered in his cost book at the time the work was being done, was 
$94,969.98, of which he received in payment from the United States the con- 
tract price of $75,000, and the further sum of $3,52S.17 for extra work not 
embraced in the contract, leaving the actual loss to the contractor $16,441.81. 

Petitioner further shows that the excess of cost over and above the contract 
price and allowance for extra work was due to the continual increase of wages 
and the price of labor and material, and that no part of the said excess could 
have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary diligence and prudence on the 
part of the contractor. 

In 1S65, a board of naval officers, thereunto authorized by the Secretary of 
the Navy, made a report on a number of vessels, in which report was included 
a statement that the excess over the contract price was the .sum of $16,441.81. 

That claimant's decedent was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is the administratrix of Jeremiah Simonson, who resided in 
Brooklyn, State of New York, in the year of 1862. 

II. In the summer of 1862 the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the Navy 
Department advertised for proposals for machinery. Following the advertise- 
ment Benjamin F. Isherwood, Chief of said Bureau, by direction of the Secre- 
tary of the Navy, visited the principal shops capable of doing the work for 
which proposals were asked and endeavored by arguments to induce the owners 
thereof to accept the work, as the Government was greatly in need of the same, 
and that as loyal supporters of the Government they were bound to meet its 
needs; that a refusal so to do would place them in the category of those not 
entitled to the patronage of the Department hereafter. That if they did not 
respond to the best of their ability he would recommend to the Department 
what he had already suggested, to take possession of the shops and have them 
operated exclusively for the Government. 

III. On September 9, 1862, said Jeremiah Simonson entered into a contract 
with John Lenthall, Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair of the 
Navy Department, to construct, for and in consideration of the sum of $75,000, 
a wooden hull for the United States double-ender Chenango, within a period of 
one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the contract, said contract 
price to include equipments and outfits. 

Without any fault on the part of the Government the vessel was not com- 
pleted until sixty-five days after the date fixed therefor in the contract. 

IV. During the progress of the work on the vessel the price of labor and 
materials greatly increased. The contractor was paid the full contract price for 
said vessel and equipments and also the sum of $3,528.17 allowed for extra 
work on the hull of said vessel. 

V. By virtue of a resolution of the United States Senate adopted March 9, 
1865, the Secretary of the Navy, on May 25, 1865, appointed a board of naval 
officers, afterwards known as the Selfridge board, to inquire into the cost of 
said vessel and machinery to the contractor, and said board thereafter reported 
that said vessel and machinery had cost the contractor $16,441.81 in excess of 
the contract price therefor, not including said sum of $3,528.17 which was 
allowed for extra work as aforesaid. 



174 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VI. The items of expenditure were submitted to the board of naval officers, 
afterwards known as the Selfridge board, and the cost of tbe Chenango was 
shown to that board (according to their report) to be $16,144.81 in excess of 
the contract price and allowance for extra work as hereinbefore set forth, and 
that was the amount allowed by the Selfridge board as above stated. 

No evidence has been offered by the Government to disprove the findings of 
the Selfridge board. 

Nor has any sufficient competent evidence been offered by the claimant to 
affirm or prove the findings of said Selfridge board. 

VII. Certified copy of limited letters of administration appear to have been 
issued to Margaret Simonson, of Springfield, Mass., and to Marie Louise Her- 
nia nee, of the county of New York, by the surrogate's court of the county and 
State of New York, with power to prosecute only and not with power to collect 
•or compromise. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN CROSBY BROWN, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10869. John Crosby Brown, executor of the 'will 
of James Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for work done and materials furnished in the construction of 
the machinery and boilers for the U. S. monitor Miantonomoh. 

On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate by resolution referred to the court, 
under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a 
bill reading as follows : 

" [S. 1181, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 
" A BILL For the relief of the estate of James Brown, deceased. 

"Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to the personal 
representatives of James Brown, deceased, of the Novelty Iron Works, out of 
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty-five 
thousand eight hundred and thirty-two dollars and four cents, in full payment 
and discharge of the claim of said personal representatives of James Brown, 
deceased, of the Novelty Iron Works, for work done and material furnished in 
the construction of the machinery of the ironclad Miantonomoh, as per report 
of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board (Senate Executive 
Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress)." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 10th day of 
October, 1906, in which he avers as follows : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of New York, in 
the State of New York, and is the surviving acting executor of the will of the 
late James Brown, who was a citizen of the United States, and a resident of 
the city of New York, in the State of New York, and that he departed this life 
on the 1st day of November, 1877; that both the claimant and his testator re- 
sided at New York City throughout the years 1861 to 1865 and gave no aid or 
comfort to the rebellion, and were at all times loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

That the Novelty Iron Works, of which James Brown was the sole owner and 
sole creditor, and which company has long since ceased to exist, entered into a 
contract with the United States on the 15th day of September, i862, for the 
building and construction of the engines and machinery for the U. S. monitor 
Miantonomoh, the same to be constructed within seven months from the date 
of the contract, the United States to deliver the vessel to the contractor within 
five months from date of contract ; that the design of the Miantonomoh was new 
and experimental as respected its turrets,' and the contractor was delayed in his 
work by the United States to enable them to work out the new and difficult 
problems arising from the novelty of the vessel, and the contractor was further 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 175 

delayed by changes made by the United States iu the plans, size, and construc- 
tion of tlie machinery and engines to adapt them to this new construction, so 
that by these changes and delays, all occasioned by the action of the United 
States, the work under the contract was not completed and accepted by the 
United States until August 11, 1865. < 

That these experiments, delays, and changes postponed the work done by the 
contractor until prices for labor and material had very greatly advanced be- 
yond those prevailing during the contract term, so that the actual cost to the 
contractors of the machinery and engines as finally completed amounted to the 
sum of $202,845.S4. 

That the contractor received from the United States for and on account of all 
said work the sum of $167,000 only, being $35,832.04 less than its actual cost. 
The only ascertainment of how much the engines and machinery of the Alian- 
tonomoh cost the contractors over and above the allowance for extra work and 
the contract price was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the 
Secretary of the Navy on the 25th day of May, 1865. The loss to the contractors 
by reason of the delays and changes ordered by the United States was $35,832.04 
over and above all sums heretofore received from the United States. 
' The contractors were not guilty of laches, inasmuch as they presented their 
claim to said board on the 10th day of October, 1865, and the same has been 
pending either before the Navy Department or Congress until its reference 
under the foregoing resolution. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
May, 1907. 

John C. Fay, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the proofs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. John Crosby Brown is the duly appointed surviving executor of the will of 
James Brown, deceased, who was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late civil war. 

II. The Novelty Iron Works, of New York City, was an incorporated company 
duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, hav- 
ing a president and board of directors. The president of the company in 1862 
was Horatio Allen, of New York City, and the business of the company was the 
manufacturing of marine and other engines. It does not appear when said 
company was incorporated, nor does the date and manner of its dissolution ap- 
pear. The claimant's decedent, James Brown, appears to have owned practi- 
cally all of the stock and assets of the company at the time of its dissolution, 
except a small number of shares of stock which were held by five individuals, 
relatives, and others in the employ of said company, for the purpose of enabling 
them to act as members of the board of directors of said company. What num- 
ber of shares were so held and who is the owner or owners thereof at the present 
time does not appear. 

III. On or about September 15, 1862, the Novelty Iron Works entered into a 
contract with the United States, through its Chief of the Bureau of Steam 
Engineering, for the building and construction of the engines and machinery for 
a United States monitor, afterwards called the Hiantonomoh, then being or 
about to be constructed for the United States. 

IV. The work was to be done within seven months after the date of the con- 
tract, under onerous penalties, for the sum of $158,500, to be completed within 
the seven months, provided the vessel was delivered to the contractors within 
five months from the date of the contract. 

V. During the construction of the vessel there were alterations aggregating 
$8,500 and additions aggregating $64,869.08 ordered and paid for by the Navy 
Department in addition to the full contract price, making a total payment to the 
contractors, less trial expenses, of $231,869.06. 

VI. By reason of these delays, over which the contractors had no control, and 
the necessary changes in the engines and machinery to adapt them to the new 
work, the work under the contract was not completed and accepted by the 
United States until August 11, 1865. In consequence of numerous contactors 
and builders of Government vessels during the war having asked additional 
compensation for the construction of said vessels on the ground that they had 



176 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

cost the contractors more than they had received for them the Senate of the 
United States on March 9, 1865, passed the following resolution : 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board 
of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into 
and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for 
by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and 
above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to 
the Senate at its next session, none but those that have given satisfaction to the 
Department to be considered." 

The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore 
Thomas O. Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, com- 
monly known as the Selfridge board : and the contractors in this case presented 
to said board a sworn statement of claim alleging the entire cost to them of the 
said vessel Miantonomoli to have been $202,832.04, thus claiming the entire cost 
to them over and above the $167,000 theretofore paid them to have been 
$35,832.04. 

Upon consideration said board decided that the vessel had cost the contractors 
this amount of thirty-five thousand eight hundred and thirty-two dollars and 
four cents ($35,832.04) over what they had received for it, and the board so 
reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was transmitted to 
the Senate on January 30, 1866. 

VII. No evidence has been adduced to impeach or confirm the report or con- 
clusion of the Selfridge board by either party. 

VIII. The contractors presented this claim to said Selfridge board on June 29, 
1865, since which time no action appears from the record to have been taken in 
the prosecution of the claim until its presentation to the Fifty-seventh Congress 
by Senate bill No. 1181, as hereinbefore set forth. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of March, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

HARDY A. BREWINGTON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11397. Hardy A. Brewington, administrator of 
estate of Raiford Brewington, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Senate bill 4292, reading as follows, was introduced on February 10, 1904, 
and was referred to this court on April 28, 1904, by resolution of the Senate, 
for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 
1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Rayford Brewington, deceased. 

" Be it enacted oy the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of 
Rayford Brewington, deceased, late of Sampson County, North Carolina, the 
sum of two thousand four hundred and three dollars, in full compensation for 
stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during 
the late war of the rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of 
May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles 
F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That? he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Sampson, State of North Carolina ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and 
acting administrator of the estate of Raiford Brewington, deceased, late of said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 177 

county and State ; that during the late civil war said decedent was a free man 
of color, residing in said county and State ; that during said war, to wit, about 
March 15, 1865, the United States military forces,. acting under proper authority, 
took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army 
quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below 
stated, to wit: 

140 bushels of corn, at $1.80 per bushel $252 

20 cords fencing, at $3 per cord 60 

2,000 pounds bacon, at 25 cents per pound 500 

1 horse 150 

li tons corn-blade fodder, at $20 per ton 30 

Total 992 

That said decedent, being an uneducated colored man, was ignorant of his 
right to present a claim for compensation for said property to the Southern 
Claims Commission; that upon becoming advised of the right to present this 
claim the representatives of said decedent pras r ed Congress for relief in the 
premises. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Raiford Brewington, was a free colored man, residing 
during the late civil war in Sampson County, N. C, and throughout said "war 
he remained loyal to the United States Government. 

II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, 
took from claimant's decedent, in Sampson County, N. C, for the use of the 
Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds described in 
the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the 
sum of five hundred and thirty dollars ($530). No payment appears to have 
been made for said property or any part thereof. 

III. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent was a colored man, 
who was ignorant of his right to present a claim to the Claims Commission 
established by the act approved March 3, 1871, during the two years allowed by 
law for filing of claims before said Commission. There was no other oppor- 
tunity for presentation of this claim save by petition to Congress. These facts 
are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or 
laches in the presentation of said claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 14, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, . 

Assistant Clerk Gourt of Claims. 

WILLIAM H. BUCKLIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11548. William H. Bucklin v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 26, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 5312. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

" A BILL For the relief of W. H. Bucklin. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to W. H. Bucklin, 
of Craven County, North Carolina, the sum of seven hundred dollars, in full 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 12 



178 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

compensation for the sailing vessel Two Sisters, taken for the use of the United 
States military forces during the late civil war." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court July 12, 1904, in 
which he makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Craven County, N. C. ; 
that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military authorities 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, took from him at Newbern, N. C, 
about March 11, 1S62, the schooner Two Sisters, of 30 tons burden, of the value 
of $700; that about two years thereafter claimant presented a claim for said 
schooner, but for some reason unknown to him said claim was never settled; 
that throughout the said war claimant was loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of 
May* 1905. 

Messrs. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FA.CT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, William H. Bucklin, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from 
William H. Bucklin, in Craven County, State of North Carolina, property as 
above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three 
hundred and ninety dollars ($390), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MARY LEE DENNIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11542. Mary Lee Dennis, executrix of estate of 
Levi T. Oglesby, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This' claim for stores or supplies alleged to have been furnished to the United 
States Government during the late civil war was first presented to the Claims 
Commission established by the act approved March 3, 1S71, but was not prose- 
cuted to a final decision before said Commission. It was first referred to this 
court on June 5, 1890, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- 
sentatives for findings of fact unde> the terms of the act approved March 3, 
1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act, being docketed in this court as 
case No. 7826, Congressional. Owing to the fact that the claim had not been 
prosecuted to a final determination before said Claims Commission, said refer- 
ence of the claim to the court conferred no jurisdiction upon the court to de- 
termine and report the facts of the case, and said case was dismissed on October 
31, 1901, for want of prosecution. During the pendency of said claim before 
this court under said reference Congress was prayed for relief in the premises, 
and bills for relief of deceased claimant were introduced in the Fifty-first, Fifty- 
second, Fifty-third, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. On April 26, 1904, Senate bill 
No. 4082, Fifty-eighth Congress, for relief of claimant's decedent, was referred 
to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under 
the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the 
Tucker Act. Said bill so referred reads as follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of L. T. Oglesby. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of one thousand one 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 179 

hundred and ninety-eight dollars and sixty cents be, and the same is hereby, 
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
pay L. T. Oglesby, of Carteret County, North Carolina, for naval stores sold 
and delivered to the United States Government in October, eighteen hundred 
and sixty-three." 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 10th day 
of December, 1906. 

Movers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. 
DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes tbe following allegations : 

That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Carteret, State of North Carolina ; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and 
acting executrix of the last will and testament of Levi T. Oglesby, deceased, 
late of said county and State; that during the late civil war said decedent re- 
sided in said county and State; that during said war, to wit, about October, 
1863, said decedent did deliver to the United States at Newport, N. C, certain 
naval stores and supplies under an agreement of sale at the prices below speci- 
fied, to wit : 

Delivered at Newport, N. C, October, 1863 : 

45 barrels dip turpentine, at $12 per barrel $540. 00 

72J barrels scrape turpentine, at $8 per barrel 578. 66 

10 barrels of tar, at $8 per barrel 80.00 

Total 1, 198. 66 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant's decedent, Levi T.* Oglesby, deceased, was, during the late civil 
war, a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Carteret, State of 
North Carolina, and throughout said war he remained loyal to the Government 
of the United States. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the claimant's dece- 
dent, Levi T. Oglesby, in response to an advertisement by the Paymaster of the 
Navy Department, sold and delivered to the naval forces of the United States 
at Carteret, N. C, subject to inspection, property of the kind and character 
described in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of five hundred and eighty-eight dollars ($588). 

Before the turpentine so sold had been inspected by the naval authorities the 
Confederate forces drove them out and seized and took possession of the prem- 
ises, together with said turpentine, with the exception of 27 barrels, which were 
used by said naval forces, and which were reasonably worth the sum of one 
hundred and eighty-two dollars ($182), no part of which appears to have been 
paid by the United States. 

III. This claim was first presented to the Southern Claims Commission in 
1871, but not prosecuted to a final decision. Its first reference to this court 
was by the House of Representatives in 1890, under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1883, and dismissed on December 31, 1901, for nonprosecution. It was 
again referred to the court on April 26, 1906, by resolution of the United States 
Senate under the provisions of the Tucker Act of March 3, 1S87. 

By the CotTBT. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



180 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, NEWBERN, N. C. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No: 12510. Terms 1906 and 1907. The First Baptist 

Church of Newbern, N. C] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States 
Senate by resolution referred to the court a bill in the following words : 

" [S. 4117, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church, of Newbern, North Carolina. 

"lie it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the First Baptist Church of Newbern, 
North Carolina, the sum of six thousand two hundred dollars, in full satis- 
faction for the use and occupation of their church building as a storehouse for 
commissary supplies by the military authorities of the United States from 
October tenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, to May tenth, eighteen hundred 
and sixty-five." 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That the First Baptist Church of Newbern is an ecclesiastical corporation 
existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. 

That the said First Baptist Church of Newbern, N. C, as a corporation, did 
not give any aid or comfort to the Confederacy during the war of the rebel- 
lion, but throughout that war remained loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

That the said church building was occupied by United States military forces 
from shortly after the date of the capture of Newbern by the United States 
military forces, and was by them used as a Warehouse for the storage of com- 
missary stores throughout the remainder of said war, and that there is justly 
due the said church rent for the use and occupation of said building for the 
period of three years, amounting in all to the sum of $6,200 for the period 
from October 1, 1862, up to December 30, 1865. 

That no claim for said use and occupation was ever presented to the United 
States except as hereinafter stated. 

That the said claim was presented to the Fifty-ninth Congress and by reso- 
lution of the Senate of the said Fifty-ninth Congress, first session (S. R. No. 
144), and was by said resolution referred to the court for findings of fact in 
accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1S87, commonly known 
as the Tucker Act. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argu- 
ment of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The First Baptist Church of Newbern, N. C, as a church was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- 
ing described in the petition the latter part of 1862 or early part of 1863, and 
used and occupied the same at intervals the greater part of three years for 
the storage of commissary supplies. The reasonable rental of the building, 
together with whatever damage was done thereto in excess of the ordinary 
wear and tear during the period of occupancy was the sum of twelve hundred 
dollar ($1,200), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under 
the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no 
reason is given why such was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 181 

J. W. HOWETT, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9601. J. W. Howett, administrator of William 
Howett, deceased, v. the United States.] 

This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by 
or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary 
inquiry, finds that William Howett, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been 
taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 17, 1899. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9601. J. W. Howett, administrator of Wil- 
liam Howett, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have 
been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their 
use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to 
the court by the resolution of the United States Senate on the 24th day of July, 
1897, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of April, 1S99, found that 
the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they 
were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th dav of October, 
1904. 

George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by E. C Brandenburg, esq,, his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the administrator of William Howett, deceased ; that the follow* 
ing property, belonging to William Howett, deceased, was taken from him by 
the Army of the United States and used by the said Army, the date, place, and 
command being particularly stated below: 

In Tyrrell County, in the State of North Carolina, in or about the fall of 
1863, by the United States Army, to wit : 

400,000 No. 1 heart-cypress and white-cedar shingles $6,000 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Tyrrell County, State 
of North Carolina, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, 
which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand four hun- 
dred and eighty dollars ($1,480), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

II. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the 
act 3d March, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 
15th June, 1878. Under the act March 3, 18S7, which provides that where there 
has been delay or laches in presenting a claim the court shall report whether 
there are " any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute 
of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim- 
ant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," the claimant has 
proved that he was ignorant of the existence of the Southern Claims Commis- 
sion, being an illiterate man, unable to read or write, and working in the 
remote region of the cedar swamps of North Carolina. As to the question 



182 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant 
the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judg- 
ment and discretion of Congress. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

O. H. PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims, Congressional case No. 11152. O. H. Perry, administrator of the estate of George 
W. Perry, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late 
war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by resolution of the 
United States Senate on the 3d day of March, 1903. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of February, 
1904. Moyers and Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by G. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned has been, a citizen of the 
United States and a resident of the county of Craven, State of North Carolina; that he 
is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of George W. 
Perry, deceased; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion said 
decedent resided in said county of Craven, State of North Carolina, and was a citizen 
of the United States; that during said war the United States military forces under 
proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United 
States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values 
below stated, to wit: 
Taken by troops under command of General Burnside from' the farm of said 

decedent, near Newbern, in said county and State, during the spring of 

1862: 

1 stallion $150. 00 

4 work horses, at $150 each 600. 00 

6 work mules, at $150 each 900. 00 

200 beef cattle, at $20 each 4, 000. 00 

200 sheep, at $2.50 each 500. 00 

2,450 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 1, 837. 50 

10 tons of blade fodder,at $20 per ton. . , 200. 00 

2 work carts 50. 00 

500 pounds smoked meat, at 12 cents per pound ,. 60. 00 

1 ferry flatboat 50. 00 

Taken by the same troops in the fall of 1862: 

150 bushels of corn from field, at % 75 cents per bushel 112. 50 

Total : 8, 460. 00 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States during the war of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Craven County, State of North 
Carolina, during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, for 
the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was 
then and there reasonably worth the sum of four thousand three hundred and fifty dol- 
lars ($4,350), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act of 
March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act of June 15, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 183 

1878. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 1887, 
* 'bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such 
claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the ques- 
tion whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal rem- 
edy," except the evidence submitted on behalf of the widow and son of the deceased 
claimant to the effect that soon after the war the claimant placed in the hands of an 
attorney the papers in this claim for the purpose of prosecuting the same, but what was 
done by him does not appear. Thereafter the claim was presented to Congress, and in 
the year 1903 the Senate referred it to this court, as hereinbefore set forth. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 29, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of March, 1904. 

[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

i 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST CHURCH SOUTH, OF MOREHEAD 

CITY, N. C. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11870. Trustees Methodist Episcopal Church South, of More- 
head City, N. C, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 6714, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

'A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, 

North Carolina. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, North 
Carolina, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their 
church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, N. O, 
appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the 
following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
month of March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Morehead City, N. C, and used and occupied the said building for a period of about 
eighteen months, and at the end of said period tore down and removed the said build- 
ing and appropriated the material to the use of the United States Army. That the 
said building was reasonably worth, at the time the said military forces first took pos- 
session of the same, the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made. 
JSsThe case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of January, 
1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Morehead City, N. C, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the 
ehurch building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, N. C, 



184 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

and used and occupied the same for a period of about eighteen months, at the end "of 
which period they tore down the building and used the materials contained therein. 
Such use and occupation and destruction of the property were reasonably worth the 
sum of eight hundred dollars ($800). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 8, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LUMBER BRIDGE, N. C. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11727. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Lumber Bridge 

N. C, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church at Lumber Bridge, North Carolina, for the church 
edifice destroyed by the Army in eighteen hundred and sixty-five . 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, empow- 
ered, directed, and instructed to pay to the Lumber Bridge Presbyterian Church, at 
Lumber Bridge, North Carolina, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, the sum of three thousand dollars, the value of the church building or 
edifice destroyed by the Army of the United States on March eleventh, eighteen 
hundred and sixty-five, and used for constructing a causeway at Lumber Bridge, in 
Robeson County, North Carolina." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Lumber Bridge, N. C, appeared and 
filed their petition in this court February 2, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March 
10, 1865, the military forces of the United States took possession of the church build- 
ing of the Presbyterian Church at Lumber Bridge, N. C., tore down the said building 
and used the material for the use of the Army under command of General Sherman. 
That at the same time and place and by the same command there was also taken 
and used for fuel two buildings, known as temperance hall and session house, belong- 
ing to the said church. That the said buildings at the time they were taken and 
used as aforesaid were reasonably worth the sum of $3,000, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of December, 
1905. . 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Lumber Bridge, 
N. C, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of, tore 
down, and used the materials therein, the buildings belonging to the Presbyterian 
Church of Lumber Bridge, N. C, which then and there were reasonably worth the 
sum of eighteen hundred dollars ($1,800). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 18, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 185 

LUCY A. DIBBLE, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11396. Lucy A. Dibble, administratrix of estate of Sylvester 
Dibble, deceased, v. Tbe United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 3877, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this 
court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms 
of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of Sylvester Dibble. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to Sylvester Dibble, of Beaufort County, North Carolina, the sum of one thousand 
two hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken from 
him and used by the military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion. ' ' 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Beaufort, 
State of Nortb Carolina; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- 
istratrix of the estate of Sylvester Dibble, deceased, late of said county and State. 

That during the late civil war said Sylvester Dibble, a person of color, was a citizen 
of the United States, residing in said county and State; that after the close of hos- 
tilities in said war, and after the surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee, of the Confederate 
army, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Stoneman, 
took from said Sylvester Dibble and converted to the use of the Army commissary 
supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

10 boxes of tobacco, 1, 000 pounds $1, 000 

200 pounds smoking tobacco 250 

3, 000 cigars '. 300 

Total ' 1, 550' 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 14th day of Jan- 
uary, 1908. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A- 
Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Sylvester Dibble, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took from the claimant's decedent in Beaufort County, N. C, property of the kind 
and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was 
reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and five dollars ($705), no part of which 
appears to have been paid . 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of 
any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for 
not having resorted to any established legal remedy except that claimant's decedent 
stated that soon after the taking of the property he made inquiries and was informed 
that he could not prosecute a claim against the Government owing to his having been 
a slave during the war; that he was subsequently advised that his claim might be 
presented for collection, and that it was placed in the hands of an attorney for collec- 
tion some years after the close of the war. Thereafter the same was presented to 
Congress and later referred to this court, as before stated, by resolution of the Senate. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant ClerkrCourt of Claims. 



186 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAfMS. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

TRUSTEES OF ST. MARK'S GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH, GETTYS- 
BURG, PA. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13004. Trustees of St. Mark's German 'Reformed Church, of 
Gettysburg, Pa., v. The United States. 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to military- 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

[S. 7087, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.. 

A BILL For the relief of the consistory of Saint Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, 

Pennsylvania. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the consistory of Saint Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, 
Pennsylvania, the sum of six hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupa- 
tion, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during 
the civil war. ' ' 

. The said consistory of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed 
there a petition in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- 
sion of the property of the St. Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa., 
consisting of a large church building about 40 by 50 feet in size, with gallery, and 
occupied the same as a military hospital for a considerable period of time following 
the battle of Gettysburg, Pa., July 3, 1863, and the property was thereby greatly 
injured. 

A claim was filed in the Quartermaster-General's office for payment for damages 
to the property, but no claim was ever presented on account of rent for use and occupa- 
tion; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, includ- 
ing repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occu- 
pation, was the sum of $600, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant 
has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has 
not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against 
the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of January, 
1908. 

' Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William 
H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The St. Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa., as an organiza- 
tion was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of said church building described in the petition and used and occu- 
pied the same for hospital purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable reutal 
value of such use and occupation, together with the incidental injury to said church 
building in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hun- 
dred and fifteen dollars ($215), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar 
of any statute limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

. ; Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 187 

TONOLOWAY BAPTIST CHURCH, FULTON COUNTY, PA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13002. The Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pa., v . 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 7085, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, 

Pennsylvania. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of the Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Penn- 
sylvania, the sum of twelve hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, 
use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the 
civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed 
their petition in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession 
of the church property of the Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pa., 
consisting of a very large brick building, about 60 by 45 feet in size, seating about 
1,000 people, and having about 40 acres of timber land, and occupied the same as a 
hospital and for other military purposes, a part of the time for treatment of contagious 
diseases; that large quantities of timber were cut off said land and used by the military 
authorites for fuel, and the property otherwise greatly injured; that the reasonable 
rental value of said property, while so occupied, including the repairs necessary to 
restore it to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for 
which no payment has been made; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true 
allegiance to the Government of the United States, and had not, in any way, volun- 
tarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 
1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interest of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pa., as a church was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil War. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the 
petition and used the same at different times as a hospital and damaged the same. 
The reasonable rental value thereof, together with damages in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars 
($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

p£III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of 
any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not 
having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



188 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

KATE REANEY ZEISS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10887. Kate Reaney Zeiss, administratrix of William B. Reaney f 
survivor of Thomas Reaney and Samuel Archbold, v. United States.] 

STATEMENT. 

On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to trie court a 
bill, No. ]186, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, providing for an appropriation of 
the sum of $97,128.78 to pay to Kate Reaney Ziess, administratrix of the estate of Wm. 
B. Reaney, deceased, surviving partner of the firm of Reaney, Son & Archbold, late 
of Chester, Pa., said sum as therein recited being the excess of the contract price for 
work done and material furnished in the construction of the iron double enders, hull 
and machinery of the Suwanee, Wateree, and Shamokin, as hereinafter set forth. 
. The claimant appeared and filed her petition, in which, among other things, she 
avers substantially that she is a sister and administratrix of Wm. B. Reaney, the sur- 
vivor of Thomas Reaney and Samuel Archbold; that said Wm. B. Reaney died 
March 26, 1901, the others named having died previous thereto; that on September 9, 
1862, in response to advertisements for proposals, said firm entered into a contract with 
John Lenthall, then Chief of the Bureau of Navigation and Repair of the Navy Depart- 
ment, whereby they agreed to build an iron paddle-wheel steamer for the United 
States, except the machinery, within six months from that date, at and for the consid- 
eration of $130,170, and by a prior contract under date of August 30, 1862, with B. F. 
Isherwood, then Chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the Navy Department 
agreed for and in consideration of the sum of $73,000 to furnish the machinery for said 
vessel; that the vessel and machinery so contracted for were not completed until nine 
months after the time fixed therefor in the contract ; that the total cost to the claimants 
for the construction of said vessel and machinery was $237,331.63, or $34,161.63 in 
excess of the contract price. Said sum of $34,161.63 is in excess of the sum named 
and also of the allowance of $4,757.62 for extra work. The claimants aver that they are 
not guilty of laches, having made due diligence and prosecuted their claim before 
Congress and before the naval board appointed by the Secretary of the Navy to inves- 
tigate said claim. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of December, 
1906. 

George de B. Myers appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
Van Orsdfil, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, Felix Brannigan, and under 
his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is the administratrix of William B.' Reaney, surviving partner of the 
firm of Reaney, Son & Archbold, all of whom resided in Chester, Pa., unitl their 
respective deaths, the last of which was that of William B. Reaney, who died March 
27, 1901. Said decedents were at all times loyal to the Government of the United 
States 

II. In the summer of 1862 the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the Navy Department 
advertised for proposals for machinery. Following the advertisement Benj. F. Isher- 
wood, Chief of said Bureau, by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, visited the prin- 
cipal shops capable of doing the work for which proposals were asked and endeavored 
by arguments to induce the owners thereof to accept the work, as the Government was 
greatly in need of the same, and that as loyal supporters of the Government they were 
bound to meet its needs; that a refusal so to do would place them in the category of 
those not entitled to the patronage of the Department thereafter. That if they did not 
respond to the best of their ability he would recommend to the Department what he 
had already suggested, to take possession of the shops and have them operated exclu- 
sively for the Government. 

III. On September 9, 1862, said Thomas Reaney, Wm. B. Reaney, and Samuel 
Archibold, by written contract entered into therefor with John Lenthall, Chief of the 
Bureau of Construction and Repair of the Navy Department, agreed that for and in 
consideration of the sum of $130,170 to build an iron paddle-wheel steamer for the 
United States. And by another written contract with B. F. Isherwood, then Chief of 
the Bureau of Steam Engineering in said Department, they agreed for and in considera- 
tion of $73,000 to furnish the motive machinery for said vessel and to complete said 
vessel with the machinery on board within one hundred and eighty days from said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 189 

September 9, 1862. The vessel so contracted to be built with the machinery on board 
-was known as an iron double-ender and was called the Waleree. 

The vessel, without any fault on the part of the Government, was not completed 
until nine months after the date fixed therefor in the contract. 

IV. During the progress of the work on the vessel the price of labor and materials 
greatly increased. The contractors were paid the full contract price for said vessel 
and machinery, and also the sum of $4,757.62,. allowed for extra work on the hull of 
said vessel. 

V. By virtue of a resolution of the United States Senate adopted March 9, 1865, 
the Secretary of the Navy, on May 25, 1865, appointed a board of naval officers, after- 
wards known as the Selfridge Board, to inquire into the cost of said vessel and machin- 
ery to the contractors , and said board thereafter reported that said vessel and machinery- 
had cost the contractor $34,161.63 in excess of the contract price therefor, not includ- 
ing said sum of $4,757.62, which was allowed for extra work as aforesaid. 

VI. No evidence has been offered by the Government to impeach the findings of 
said Selfridge Board. Nor has the court had access to the books of said contractors 
showing the items of cost to them on the Wateree. The items of expenditure were 
submitted to said board by Samuel Archbold on behalf of the firm of which he was a 
member, in which the cost of the Wateree was shown to be $34,161.63 over and above 
the contract price and allowance for extra work as hereinbefore set forth, and that was 
the amount allowed by the Selfridge Board, as above stated. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims* 

JOHN H. BURTIS AND OTHERS. 

jCourt of Claims. Congressional case No. 13106. John H. Burtis, subnumber 345; Cornelius Bennett, 
subnumber 347; William Croft, subnumber 348; Joseph Clyne, subnumber 350; Jacob Callas, sub- 
number 352; James A. Driver, subnumber 354; Wellington Griffith, subnumber 360; George W. 
Heald, subnumber 363; James Hepenstall, subnumber 364; George B. Heald, subnumber 365; John 
Knight, subnumber 369; Edward Northup, subnumber 372; John D. Post, subnumber 373; Patrick 
H. White, subnumber 380, Brooklyn Navy- Yard.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for payment to the above-named claimants for service rendered at 
the United States navy-yard at League Island, Pa., above a legal day of eight hours. 

On March 2, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the 
following words: 

" [S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. 

' c Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him in a petition 
to this Congress, dated January twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, the 
amounts that may be found due to each of them, respectively, for extra labor, above 
the legal day of eight hours, while employed by the United States as workmen, 
laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, performed by 
them by reason of and under the provisions of Circular Numbered Eight, issued by the 
Secretary of the Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight." 

Thereafter the claimants above named and each of them filed their respective 
petitions in which they and each of them aver substantially as follows: 

That between March 21, 1878, and September 21, 1882, they and each of them were 
employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard at Brooklyn, 
N. Y.; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order referred 
to in the petition of the claimants and known as "Circular No. 8;" that during sis 
months in each year from the date of said order, to September 21, 1882, they worked 
during all or a portion of the time they were so employed in excess of eight hours per 
day, and that they and each of them were paid for only eight hours' work per day 
for the time they were so employed during said period; and that they and each of 
them are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respective petitions, being the pay 
for^all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours per day. 



190 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN' CLAIMS. 



The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on February 20, 1908. 

Thomas Dawson appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. 
Cox. his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument on both 
sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Between the 21st of March, 1878, and the 21st of September. 1882. the claimants 
and each of them above named were in the employ of the United States in the navy- 
yard at Brooklyn, N. Y., as laborers, workmen, or mechanics, during which time the 
following order was in force : 

"Circular No. 8.] ''Navy Department, 

"Washington, March 21, 1S78. 

"The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular 
of October 25. 1877. in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and 
shore stations: 

"The working hours will be, from March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. in. to 6 p. m. ; 
from September 22 to March 20. from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m.. with the usual inter- 
mission of one hour for dinner. The Department will contract for the labor of 
mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. 
All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase 
of their wages. 

' ' The commandants will notify the men employed or to be employed of these con- 
ditions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. 

"R. W. Thompson, 

"Secretary of the Navy." 

II. Said claimants and each of them while in the employ of the United States as 
aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective 
names in excess of eight hours a day at the prices below stated, to wit: 



Sub. 
No. 



345 
347 



350 

352 

354 

360 
363 



Name of claimant. 



364 
365 

369 
372 
373 

380 



Number of hours in excess of iRate per 
8 .hours a day. ! day. 



John H. Burtis 499£ hours . . 

323g hours.. 

62 hours 

Cornelius Bennett I 682 J hours . . 

\ 30} hours . . . 
i 520} hours.. 
I 135 hours . . . 

William Croft , 174,% hours . 

i 86 -J hours... 

Joseph Clyne I 263 ^ hours . 

' 23| hours... 
158 T v hours . 

Jacob Callas • 52 hours 

I 108 hours... 

James A. Driver i 297£ hours . . 

739 T % hours . 

Wellington Griffith ' ; 155} hours.. 

George W. Heald , 



James Hepenstall. 
George B. Heald.. 

John Knight 



Edward Northup. 



John D. Post. 



Patrick H. White. 



hours . 

263} hours 

104^ hours 

96 hours 

5 hours 

259 hours 

143j hours 

125 hours , 

6 hours 

3} hours less than 8 hours a 

day. 

1,44SI hours 

1,0784 hours 

72 hours 

305J hours 

205| hours 

109 hours 

41S T V. hours 

101 iV hours .' 

184 hours 

321 T v hours 

305} hours 

105 hours 

190}J hours 



S3. 00 
3.26 
3.50 
1.50 
2.00 
2.36 
2.60 
3.00 
2.76 
2.50 
2.76 
3.00 
3.00 
3.50 
2.76 
3.00 
3.00 
0.84 

.96 
1.10 
1.14 
1.42 
1.50 
1.80 
1.96 
3.40 

.98 

5.00 
3.00 
3.26 
3.00 
3.26 
3.50 
3.00 
3.26 
3.50 
3.00 
3.26 
3.50 
3.00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 191 

III. If it is considered that eight hours constituted a day's work under the order of 
the Secretary of the Navy, as aforesaid, during the period from March 21, 1878, to Sep- 
tember 22, 1882, then the claimants have been underpaid the sums set opposite their 
respective names, as follows: 

John H. Burtis, three hundred and forty-six dollars and thirty-nine cents ($346.39)^ 

Cornelius Bennett, three hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty cents ($332.80). 

William Croft, ninety-five dollars and thirteen cents ($95.13). 

Joseph Clyne, one hundred and fifty dollars and three cents ($150.03). 

Jacob Callas, sixty-six dollars and seventy-five cents ($66.75). 

James A. Driver, three hundred and seventy-nine"dollars and eighty cents ($379.80). 

Wellington Griffith, fifty-eight dollars and twenty-two cents ($58.22). 

George W. Heald, one hundred and eighty-one dollars and thirty-four eents- 
($181.34). 

James Hepenstall, nine hundred and five dollars and ten cents ($905.10). 

George B. Heald, four hundred and thirty-three dollars and seventv-seven cents 
($433.77). 

John Knight, two hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty cents ($245.80). 

Edward Xorthup, two hundred and seventy-eight dollars and forty-seven cents* 
($278.47). 

John D. Post, two hundred and ninety dollars and ninety-two cents ($290.92). 

Patrick H, White, seventy-one dollars and fifty-nine cents ($71.59). 

IV. Several of the claimants hereinbefore mentioned filed their claims in this court 
in September, 1888. In 1906 they were dismissed for want of prosecution, and no- 
reason is given why said claimants did not prosecute said claims to a final judgment 
in this court. 

Except as above stated, the claims were never presented to any department or officer 
of the Government prior to the presentation thereof to Congress and reference to this 
court as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, nor is any competent evi- 
dence adduced to show why said claimants did not earlier prosecute their said claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of February, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13106. Christopher Alexander, subnumber 1; Albert O. Cham- 
berlain, snbnumber 2; David Craig, subnumber 3; William Coates, subnumber 4; Daniel H. Chat- 
tin, subnumber 6; Josephine Cramp, widow of Martin C. Cramp, deceased, subnumber 7; Thomas 
Denney, subnumber 8; John J. Garrity, subnumber 9; John B. Grover, jr., subnumber 10; William 
Lynn, subnumber 12; George W. Margerum, subnumber 13; Theodore Mitchell, subnumber 14; 
Thomas W. Meyers, subnumber 15; John H. Pettit, subnumber 16; Robert Pogue, subnumber 17; 
James Spear, subnumber 22; Edward T. Weaver, subnumber 23; Thomas R. Walters, subnumber 
24; George A. Zirnberg, subnumber 25 (navy-yard, League Island, Pa.).] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for payment to the above-named claimants for service rendered at 
the*United States navy-yard at League Island, Pa., above a legal day of eight hours. 

On March 2, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the fol- 
lowing words: 

"[S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and Mouse of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author, 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him in a 
petition to this Congress, dated January twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, 
the amounts that may be found due to each of them, respectively, for extra labor 
above the legal day of eight hours while employed by the United States as workmen, 
laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, performed by 
them by reason of and under the provisions of circular numbered eight, issued by 
the Secretary of the .Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy- 
eight." 



192 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter the claimants above named, and- each of them, filed their respective 
petitions, in which they, and each of them, aver substantially as follows: 

That between March 21, 1878, and September 21, 1882, they, and each of them, 
were employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard at League 
Island, Pa.; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order 
referred to in the petition of the claimants and known as "Circular No. 8;" that 
during the six months in each year from the date of said order, to September 21, 
1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time they were so employed in 
excess of eight hours per day, and that they, and each of them, were paid for only 
eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period, 
:and that they, and each of them, are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respec- 
tive petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in excess of eight 
hours per day. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on February 20, 
1908. 

Thomas Dawson appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument on 
both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Between the 21st of March, 1878, and the 21st of September, 1882, the claim- 
ants, and each of them, above named, were in the employ of the United States in the 
navy-yard at League Island, Pa., as laborers, workmen, or mechanics, during which 
time the following order was in force : 

Oircular"! Navy Department, 

No. 8. J Washington, March 21, 1878. 

The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular 
of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and 
shore stations: 

The working hours will be, from March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 
p. m.; from September 22 to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., with the usual 
intermission of one hour for dinner. The Department will contract for the labor of 
mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. 
All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase 
of their wages. 

The commandants will notify the men employed or to be employed of these condi- 
tions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. 

R. W. Thompson, 

Secretary of the Navy. 

II. Said claimants, and each of them, while in the employ of the United States as 
aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective 
names in excess of eight hours a day at the prices below stated, to wit: 



Sub. ! t. t „„„ . „i„<„,„„ + I Number of hours in excess of 



No. 



Name of claimant 



8 hours a day. 



Eate per 
day. 



1 | Christopher Alexander 18hours S2.26 

1,286 T V hours 2. 30 

Albert O. Chamberlain I 17 hours I 1. 76 

74 hours < 2. 00 

12 hours i 1.80 

3 DavidCraig 79f hours I 3.00 

4 William Coates 906^ hours 3.00 

83h6urs i 3.26 

5 Daniel H. Chattin I 1,069^ hours 3.00 

6 Josephine Cramp, widow of Martin C. Cramp, de- 496,1- hours 3.00 

ceased. 

Thomas Denney 



John J. Garrity. 



3| hours 3.00 

57 hours 3.26 

26 hours .90 

267}_ hours 1. 05 

269,V hours | 1. 20 

241f hours i 1. 50 

279f hours | 1. 80 

136 hours I 3. 00 

80 hours . . . .- I 3. 26 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 



193 



Sub. 
No. 



Name of claimant. 



Number of hours in excess of 
8 hours a day. 



Rate per] 
day. 



John E. Grover, jr. 



12 i William Lynn 

13 i George W. Margerum. 

14 Theodore Mitchell 



15 Joseph W. Meyers. . 

W John H. Pettit 

17 i Robert Pogue 

22 | James Spear 

23 • Edward T. Weaver. 



24 ! Thomas R. Walters. 

25 George A. Zirnberg. 



251 hours . . . 
272i hours . . 
263s hours. . 
264 \ hours . . 
256^ hours . . 

40 hours 

4fil& hours.. 

28 hours 

633} hours.. 

78 hours 

638g hours . . 

86 hours 

5 hours 

1 123 V hours. 
244| hours . . 
1,449$ hours. 
: ,008§ hours. 
158 hours... 
604 hours... 

52 hours 

1,2131 hoars. 



$0.90 
fcl.05 
1.20 
1.50 
1.80 
3.00 
3.00 
3.26 
3.00 
3.26 
3.00 
3.26 
3.00 
3.00 
3.00 
5.50 
3.00 
3.50 
3.00 
3.26 
3.00 



III. If it is considered that eight hour^ constituted a day's work during the'period 
from March 21, 1878. to September 22, 1882. under the order of the Seoretary]of the 
Navy, as aforesaid, then the claimants, or their decedents, have been underpaid the 
sums set opposite their respective names, as follows: 

Christopher Alexander, three hundred and seventv-four dollars and eighty-three 
cents ($374.83). 

Albert O. Chamberlain, twenty-four dollars and ninety-four cent? ($24.94"). 

David Craig, twenty-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents ($29.87). 

William Toates, three hundred and seventv-tbree dollars and ninety-one cents 
($375.91). 

Daniel H. Chattin, four hundred and one dollars and nine cents ($401.09, 

Josephine Cramp, widow of Martin C. Cramp, deceased, one hundred and eighty-six 
dollars and six cents ($186.06). 

Thomas Denney. twenty-four dollars and sixty cents ($24.60). 

John J. Garrity, two hundred and seventy dollars and fourteen cents ($270.14). 

John B. Grover, jr., two hundred and twenty-five dollars and eighty-one cents 
($225.81). 

William Lynn, one hundred and eighty-four dollars and sixty cents ($184.60). 

George W. Margerum, two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and forty-three cents 
($269.43). 

Theodore Mitchell, two hundred and seventy-four dollars and sixty cents ($274.60). 

Joseph W. Meyers, one dollar and eighty-seven cents ($1.87). 

John H. Pettit, four hundred and twenty-one dollars and thirty-one cents ($421.31). 

Robert Pogue, ninety-one dollars and seventy-five cents ($91.75). 

James Spear, nine hundred and ninety-six dollars and seventy-six cents ($996.76). 

Edward T. Weaver, four hundred and fortv-seven dollars and thirty-seven cents 
($447.37). 

Thomas R. Walters, two hundred and forty-seven dollars and sixty-nine cents 
($247.69). 

George A. Zirnberg, four hundred and fifty-five dollars and fifteen cents ($455.15). 

IV. The claims of the several individuals hereinbefore mentioned, except the 
claims of John B. Grover, jr., John H. Pettit, and George A. Zirnberg, were never 
presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to the presentation 
thereof to Congress and reference to this court, as hereinbefore set forth in the state- 
ment of the case, nor is any competent evidence adduced to show why said claimants 
did not earlier prosecute their said claims. The claims of said John B. Grover, jr., 
John H. Pettit, and George A. Zirnberg were filed in this court in September, 1888, 
and were dismissed for want of prosecution in October, 1906. No reason is shown why 
said claimants did not prosecute their claims in this court to a final judgment. 

Br the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of February, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 13 



John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



194 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

MOUNT ZION SOCIETY. 

I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11050. Mount Zion Society of Fairfield County, S. C, v. The 

United States.] 

The following bill was referred to the court March 12, 1903, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of Mount Zion Society. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay to the president of Mount Zion Society, Fairfield 
County, South Carolina, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, the sum of eleven thousand dollars, being the amount for rent, use, and occu- 
pancy of the buildings, lands, and premises of Mount Zion College by United States 
troops in and during the years eighteen hundred and sixty-five, eighteen hundred 
and sixty-six, and eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, the same being the property of 
said Mount Zion Society." i 

The said society appeared and filed its petition in this court September 24, 1903, in 
which it makes the following allegations: 

I. That the said society was organized under its charter from the State of South 
Carolina on the 13th day of February, 1777, for the purpose of education, and among 
others enumerated was a provision for the "maintenance and education of such poor 
and helpless orphans and indigent children as they shall judge proper objects of the 
•charity hereby intended." 

II. That under said society's charter there was owned and possessed by it at the 
time hereinafter mentioned and used for the purposes of the society 30 acres of land, 
a large main college building with three wings, substantially built, three stories, Vith 
the usual recitation rooms and paraphernalia and incidentals of a college building, 
and suitable for said purposes, together with numerous dormitories for the lodgment 
of boarding pupils and scholars, and the residence of the principal and his family. 
That in addition thereto there were two out or frame buildings, also used as recitation 
rooms. 

III. That the above properties were devoted exclusively to the purposes projected 
in its-charter and said properties were exceedingly valuable and considerable. 

IV. That as an educator said college stood second to none in the South of its kind 
and curriculum, and has educated men for every industry and for nearly every State 
in the Union, and at that time its reputation as an educator was deservedly high. 

V. That at the time of its occupation by United States troops on or about the 20th 
day of February, 1865, the said premises were well equipped and buildings in good 
condition and repair. That on the said day the forces of the United States entered 
into possession of said properties for the purposes and benefits of the said United States, 
and that the buildings were used for residences, hospitals, and for diverse purposes 
as desired, while the grounds were used and occupied as parade grounds and the woods 
and timbers used as desired, which said occupations and uses continued in whole or 
in part with short and immaterial intervals by diverse commands and garrisons until 
the latter part of the year 1867. That the society was greatly obstructed and pre- 
vented from the exercise of its functions and suffered great damages therefrom — and 
the use and occupation of its property was worth for the said time the sum of $11,000. 

VI. That the said society has not been paid for said use and occupation of its prop- 
erty, and there is now due and owing to the said plaintiff the sum of $11,000, and 
that there is no set-off or discount or credit of or on the same. 

VII. That after having been introduced into Congress on different occasions, 
being favorably reported by committees twice, which are hereto annexed, the bill 
for payment of this claim was, by Senate resolution No. 406, Fifty-seventh Congress, 
second session (1903), referred to the Court of Claims pursuant to the act of March, 
1887, with the usual request "to proceed with the same in accordance with the pro- 
visions of such act and report," etc. 

VIII. That your petitioner has made no assignment, transfer, or sale of said claim, 
but is entitled to the payment thereof. 

IX. That said society has not voluntarily aided or abetted any rebellion against 
the United States, but, being organized for educational purposes, its functions have 
been exclusively confined to that purpose and none other. 

Wherefore the plaintiff prays judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in 
the sum of $11,000, and your petitioner will ever pray, etc. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 195 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Decem- 
ber, 1905. Osmund W. Buchanan, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Mount Zion Society, of Fairfield County, 
State of South Carolina, as such, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of, used, and occupied the build- 
ings and land belonging to the Mount Zion Society, of Fairfield County, South Caro- 
lina, using the same for military purposes, the reasonable value of such use and 
occupation being the sum of six thousand dollars (S6,000), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

III. No claim for said occupation was ever presented to any department or officer 
of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court 
as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 2, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF BAPTIST CHURCH, OF BEAUFORT, S. C. 

[Court of claims. Congressional case No. 12463. Trustees of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, S. C, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the 
United States Senate referred to the court the following bill: 

"[S. 3018, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, South Carolina. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, South Carolina, the sum of 
four thousand dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to their church property 
by thg military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 22d day of January, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
November, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of the church building of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, S. C, and used 
and occupied the same for quarters until the summer of 1863, when the said build- 
ing was converted to hospital purposes and so used and occupied until after the 
close of the war. That among other officers occupying the said building were Gens. 
Q. A. Gilmor, John P. Hatch, and David Hunter. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in 
which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of 
$4,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 1st day of April, 
1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



196 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Baptist Church of Beaufort, S. C, as a church, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the 
petition herein and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period 
of about eighteen months, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value 
thereof, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was at 
the time and place the sum of twenty-two hundred dollars ($2,200), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to aay department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of 
March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given for the nonpresen- 
tation of the same. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 8, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VESTRY OF TRINITY PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, EDISTO 
ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12416. Vestry of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on 
Edisto Island, South Carolina, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL Eor the relief of Trinity Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to Trinity Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina, the sum of three thousand 
dollars, for use and destruction of church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the late civil war." 

The vestry of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Caro- 
lina, appeared and filed their petition in this court October 5, 1906, in which they 
make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of 
the church building of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church,, on Edisto Island, South 
Carolina, and used and occupied the same for military purposes until about the close 
of the war. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of 
|3,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of Decem- 
ber, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the Trinity Protestant 
Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina, was, as a church, loyal to the 
Government of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 197 

TL During the said war the military forces of the United States by proper authority, 
for military purposes, took possession of and occupied the building belonging to the 
Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina. The rea- 
sonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to said occu- 
pation, was the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any other department 
or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this 
court as aforesaid; and no evidence is offered to show the reason, if any existed, for such 
delay. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TENNESSEE. 
BOILING FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, COWAN, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. No. 12509 Congressional. Boiling Fork Baptist Church v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims by order of the Senate of the 
United States on June 13, 1906, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 4417, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Boiling Fork Baptist Church. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tennessee, the sUm of two 
thousand dollars as compensation for the use and destruction of the said church build- 
ing by the United States Army during the late civil war. " 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court September 25, 1906, by 
the trustees for the said church, J. W. Sargent, the elder, and Clem Jernigan, the 
clerk and deacon, the other trustees being Joe Delzell and J. S. Rollins, who con- ' 
sented to the action, and they make the following allegations: 

That in the fall of 1863 this church was the owner of a brick building, 30 feet by 
60 feet and one and one-half stories high, near Cowan, Tenn., and that the building 
was used regularly for public worship at that time by the said Boiling Fork Baptist 
Church. 

That in the fall of 1863 Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, commander of a portion of the United 
States Army, came through that part of the country, and by the direction and com- 
mand of officers to this petitioner unknown, and without the consent of the church, 
caused the said building to be torn down and the bricks used to make brick ovens 
for the use of the Union Army, and also for building chimneys for the' larger conva- 
lescent tents. And the said church building and the bricks were of the fair value of 
two thousand dollars ($2,000). 

That they are not informed as to what troops took the property, but knew they 
were under the command of General Rosecrans. 

That this claim was presented to the United States for payment in the Fifty-eighth 
Congress and in the Fifty -ninth Congress at the first session under Senate bill 4417, 
and was referred to this honorable court on or about September 24, 1906, under the 
Tucker Act for findings of fact. 

They claim the sum of $2,000 for the property taken and used by the Union Army, 
belonging to the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church, in the fall of 1863, in Cowan, 
Franklin County, Tenn. 

Under the decision of the court the question of loyalty does not arise in the case 
of a church claimant. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the merits and loyalty on March 4, A. D. 
1907, Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 



198 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

by Mr. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition in the fall of 1863 
and tore down the same and used the bricks therein contained for building chimneys 
and bake ovens. The bricks so used were then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of thirteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,310), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 
3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute 
of limitation should be waived or which shall excuse the claimant church for not 
having presented said claim to some department of the Government prior to such 
presentation to Congress. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CLEVELAND MASONIC LODGE, NO. 134, CLEVELAND, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12495. The Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, of Cleveland, 

Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 5847, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

' "A BILL For the relief of Cleveland Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and thirty-four, Cleveland , 

Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the Cleveland Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and thirty- 
four, of Cleveland, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand eight hundred and fifty 
dollars, in full payment for the use, occupation of, and damage to the property of 
said Masonic lodge by the United States troops during the late civil war. 

The worshipful master of said lodge appeared in this court July 7, 1906, and filed 
his petition, in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the period from December, 1863, to May, 1865, the Cleveland Masonic 
Lodge, No. 134, of Cleveland, Tenn., was the owner of a large two-story brick build- 
ing, with large wing, and 1| acres of land covered with shade trees in Cleveland, Tenn. , 
and that during said period the said building and grounds were occupied by United 
States troops; that during said occupancy the said troops burned the picket fence 
surrounding said grounds for fuel, destroyed the shade trees, destroyed the furni- 
ture and property of the lodge, and injured and defaced the said building. That 
the value of the use and occupation of said building and grounds for said period and 
of the property so destroyed was $1,850, for which no payment has ever been made; 
that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Government of the 
United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given 
encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 
1908. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 199* 

Coldren & Fanning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William 
H. Lamar, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, of 
Cleveland, Tenn., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
occupied said lodge building as a guardhouse and for other purposes. The reason- 
able rental value of said building, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was the sum of nine hundred and forty dollars ($940), no part of which 
appeal's to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress, and reference to this court by resolution of 
the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute 
of limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant 
for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Cotjht. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 190S. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric- Court of Claims, 

ELAM C. COOPER, 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11425. Elam C. Cooper v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court in April. 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker 
Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of Elam C. Cooper. 

" Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to Elam C. Cooper, of Lauderdale County, Tennessee, the sum 
of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and sup- 
plies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court June 7, 1905, in which 
he makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Lauder- 
dale, State of Tennessee, where he resided during the late civil war; that during said 
war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from him for the 
use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the "kinds and values below 
stated, to wit: 

Taken by troops at Fort Pillow, by the Fiftv-second Indiana Infantry, under Colonel 
Wolf, about September, 1863, 39 fine beef cattle, $1,250. 

The case was brought to a hearing on lovaltv and merits on the 19th day of March, 
1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. 
Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in Lauderdale County, 



200 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

State of Tennessee, took property of the kind and character above described which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and 
fifteen dollars ($815), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any officer or Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. It 
is shown in evidence that the claimant could not read or write and had no knowledge 
of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 26, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY, OF LEBANON, TENN. 

[In the United States Court of Claims, Congressional, No. 11003, Cumberland University, of Lebanon, 

Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for the occupancy, use, and destruction of 
Cumberland University, at Lebanon, Tenn., and for the use and destruction of its fur- 
niture, furnishings, and equipments by the military forces of the United States dur- 
ing the years of 1862, 1863, and 1864. was transmitted to the court by resolution of 
the Senate of the United States, dated March 3, 1903, under the act of March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of May, 
1905. Burton T. Doyle, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

Claimant, in its petition, makes the following allegations: 

That it is an institution of learning, located at Lebanon, Tenn., under the laws of 
which State it was incorporated, and is the sole owner of the claim here presented, 
no part of which has ever been transferred, assigned, or paid. 

That at the beginning of the war for the suppression of the rebellion claimant owned 
and was using for university purposes a large, commodious, and imposing university 
building, three stories high, 150 feet long, with wings at the ends 50 feet deep, sur- 
mounted by a large central dome and containing a large and well-equipped and. well- 
furnished central chapel, well-furnished and well-equipped dormitories, class rooms, 
libraries, laboratories, society halls, and other conveniences and appurtenances of a 
first-class modern university, sufficiently large and commodious to shelter and accom- 
modate its three distinct departments of learning, a collegiate department, a law 
department, and a theological department, with their combined enrollment of over 
500 students, the building itself (exclusive of its grounds, furniture, furnishings, and 
equipments) having but recently cost claimant over $40,000. 

That each of these three separate and distinct departments had its own separate 
and distinct furnishings and equipments, including a separate library for each, and 
each library being well furnished and stocked with books. 

. That the grounds around the building contained 20 acres; were beautifully set in 
blue grass, embellished by a systematic grove of handsome shade trees, many of 
which were of natural growth, and were entirely inclosed by a heavy cedar fence, 
some 6 or 8 feet high and mostly picket. 

That said building and grounds were taken and occupied and used almost con- 
stantly and continuously by Federal troops of one command or another as a fort, 
headquarters, or barracks,' or all of these combined, from February or early in March, 
1862, to some time in the latter part of September, 1864; and that during such occu- 
pancy and use the Federal soldiers burned as fuel or otherwise used and destroyed 
all the fencing about the grounds, all the shade trees in the grounds, nearly all of the 
woodwork and furnishings about the building, such as floors, doors, window frames, 
door facings, seats, benches, desks, chairs, platforms, blackboards, etc. 

That they destroyed the blue-grass sodding by cutting trenches and throwing up 
breastworks through the grounds as well 'as by keeping horses thereon and running 
wagons through the same; that they defaced, ruined, or destroyed all of the interior 
finish of the building, and used, scattered, and destroyed the library's furniture and 
other furnishings to such an extent that in September, 1864, there was nothing left 
of these once splendid properties except the bare walls and roof of the building itself, 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 201 

and the denuded and devastated grounds, cut to pieces by trenches, breastworks, 
horses' feet, wagon wheels, etc. ; and that, upon the Federal troops leaving the premi- 
ses in September, 1864, the Confederate soldiers completed the work of destruction 
by burning what was left by the Federals, claiming that they did so solely because 
the premises were being used by the Federal soldiers as a stronghold. 

The values of the properties so occupied, used, and destroyed by Federal troops 
under the command of Colonel Munday, Colonel Woolford (or Wolford), and others 
at Lebanon, Tenn., between February, 1862. and September. 1864 (or October, 1864), 
were as follows: 

Fair and reasonable values of libraries, furniture, furnishings, trimmings 
laboratories, doors, floors, windows, seats, fences, trees, grounds, etc., 
fully $15,000 

Fair and reasonable value of rent and use of these premises during the two and 
a half years they were so occupied and used by Federal troops, being $1,000 
a year for thirty months 2, 500 

Fair and reasonable value of the parts of the building itself destroyed by 
Confederate troops because of its occupancy and use by Federal troops for 
military purposes 12, 500 

Making, in the aggregate, the amount claimed of 30, 000 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Cumberland University, of Lebanon' 
Tenn., as a corporation, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the buildings and grounds 
owned by the Cumberland University, of Lebanon, Tenn., and used and occupied 
the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said university build- 
ings and grounds during the time they were so occupied by the military authorities, 
and the damage done thereto on account of such occupancy (exclusive of the destruc- 
tion of the building by the Confederates, for which no allowance is made), was the 
sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 29, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of March, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS, TENX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11887. Board of Deacons of the First Baptist Church of 
Memphis, Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for use and occupation of real estate belonging 
to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., by United States military forces 
during the late civil war, was first transmitted to this court by the Committee on 
War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891, for find- 
ings of fact under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly 
known as the Bowman Act. The case so presented was designated as No. 8409, 
Congressional. Some testimony was taken under that reference. This court being 
without jurisdiction of the claim under said reference, however, the occupation in 
question having commenced prior to January 1, 1863, a bill was introduced in the 
Fifty-eighth Congress for relief of claimant, being Senate bill No. 7159. Said bill 
reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Aiherica 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 



202 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
States not otherwise appropriated, to the Fust Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee, 
the sum of five thousand dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and 
destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on March 3, 1905, 
for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and com- 
monly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th dav of Janu- 
ary, 1906. 

Movers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by Phillip M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That during the late civil war the First Baptist Church of Memphis. Term., was 
the owner of certain real estate in said city of Memphis; that during said war there 
was situated upon said land a substantially constructed brick church building, about 
50 by 68 feet in dimensions, with a large audience room and a basement under the 
same; that there were also situate upon said land a pastor's study and a certain frame 
house or dwelling containing two rooms and attic: that the value of said premises 
during the civil war was about §30,000; that during said war the United States mili- 
tary forces, under proper authority, took possession of said premises and used and 
occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of at least twelve and one-half 
months: that during said period said premises were reasonably and fairly worth a 
monthly rental of at least §150: that claim is made as follows: 

To use and occupation of premises in city of Memphis, Tenn., comprising a two- 
story brick church building, a pastor's study, and one dwelling house from Novem- 
ber 12, 1862. to November 27, 1863, a period of twelve and one-half months, at *150 
per month. SI. 8 75. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church, of Memphis, Tennes- 
see, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. • 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building and other buildings belonging to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Ten- 
nessee, and used and occupied the same for a period of about twelve months. The 
reasonable rental value of said buildings for the period they were so occupied was 
the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 29, 1906. 

A true copv. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MINNA H. GLASSIE. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10435. Minna H. Glassie and Joseph C. Nash r.The United States . 

This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or 
furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that 
Minna H. Glassie and Joseph C. Nash, the persons alleged to have furnished such 
supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout said war. being of tender years. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 3, 1905. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 203 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10435. Emma Nash ». The United States.] 

|?J>This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- 
nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for 
the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon 
the evidence it does not appear that Emma Nash, the person alleged to have fur- 
nished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case ia 
dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 5, 1905. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10435. Minna H. Glassie v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the 
Senate of the United States on the 3d day of March, 1901. under the Tucker Act. 

On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of April. 1905. found that Minna 
H. Glassie and Joseph C. Nash, two of the persons alleged to have furnished the sup- 
plies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the said war, and that Emma Nash, 
one of the parties alleged to have furnished said supplies or stores, or from whom 
they were alleged to have been taken, was not loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of January, 1906. 
Ralston & Siddons, *esqs.. appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : 

That on or about April 15, 1859. Minna H. Glassie. Joseph C. Nash, and Emma 
Nash became the beneficial owners of a certain tract of land, being 69 acres of land 
fronting on the Nolensville turnpike, 6 miles from Nashville, Tenn.. by deed con- 
veying the same to Joseph Nash, their father, as trustee. That in the fall and winter 
of the years 1862 and 1863 forces of the United States Army under the command of 
> General Sheridan used this land and another tract of 204 acres adjoining this land as 
a camping ground; that this adjoining tract was under cultivation as a farm, but the 
tract of 69 acres described above was thickly wooded, had not been under cultiva- 
tion, and was chiefly valuable for the wood thereon: that there were on said tract of 69 
acres several log buildings, and said tract was entirely fenced by a valuable fence 
built of cedar pickets; that while the Federal troops aforesaid were camping on this 
and the adjoining tract they tore down the log buildings and the cedar fence which 
were upon this tract and used the wood of which they were builded for fuel; that 
they also cut down the trees upon said tract and used them and other logs which had 
been cut down and corded before their arrival; that all of said property was taken 
from said tract of 69 acres of which said Minna H. Glasse, Joseph C. Nash, and Emma 
Nash were the sole beneficial owners; that the items and values of said property they 
took and used were as follows:] 

700 cords of green wood, at $2 $1, 400 

348 cords of seasoned wood, at §5 1, 740 

38 cords of seasoned logs 190 

95 cords of cut wood 390 

900 pickets 45 

Total 3, 765 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

There was taken from the claimant during the war for the suppression of th e rebel 
lion by the military forces of the United States in Davidson County, Tenn., for the 
use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two thousand one hundred 
and fifteen dollars ($2,115), for which no payment appears to have been made. 



204 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAHST CLAIMS. 

Of this amount Minna H. Glassie, who has heretofore been found loyal, is entitled 
to receive two-thirds, or fourteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,410), the remaining 
one-third, or seven hundred and five dollars ($705), belonging to Emma Nash, who 
has heretofore been found disloyal by the court. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HIWASSEE MASONIC LODGE, NO. 188, CALHOUN, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12496. Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, No. 188, of Calhoun, Term., v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 6400, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and eighty-eight, of Cal- 
houn, Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury "not otherwise appro- 
priated, to Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and eighty-eight, of 
Calhoun, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for stores 
and supplies taken from and furnished by said lodge to United States military forces 
and the use and occupation of said lodge premises by United States forces during the 
civil war. ' ' 

The worthy master of said lodge appeared in this court July 6, 1906, and filed his 
petition in which it is substantially averred that: 

During the period from November, 1863, to middle of June, 1865, said lodge was the 
owner of a brick building at Calhoun, Tenn. , and that during said period said building • 
was occupied by United States troops for army purposes; that said troops cut numerous 
portholes through the brick walls of said building on all sides, both of the first and sec- 
ond stories, and consumed and destroyed the ceiling and partitions, lodge-room fur- 
niture, stairway, fences, and desks belonging to said lodge, and that the value of the use 
and occupation of said building during said period was $500 and the value of the prop- 
erty consumed, damaged, and destroyed by said troops was $500; total, $1,000, for 
which no payment has ever been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true 
allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not, in any way, voluntarily 
aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day ox December, 
1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George 
E. Boren, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- 
sel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, No. 188, of Cal- 
houn, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the building and grounds of the Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, No. 188, 
of Calhoun, Tenn., and occupied the same as a fort and hospital. The reasonable 
rental value thereof, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
then and there the sum of six hundred and twenty dollars ($620), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 205 

United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of 
limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not 
having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 6, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ROBERT C. JAMESON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10189. Robert C. Jameson, administrator of the estate of 
David J. Jameson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for the use and occupation of real estate by 
the military forces of the United States was referred to the court by resolution of 
the United States Senate on the 2d day of May, 1900, under the provisions 6f the act 
of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of April, 1902. 

Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The clahnant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion in the county of 
Shelby, State of Tennessee; that on or about July 31, 1862, the United States forces, 
by proper authority, took possession of a certain four-story brick house situated on 
Front street, in Memphis, Tenn., of which premises said decedent was the owner of 
an undivided one-half interest, and used and occupied said premises from July 31, 
1862, to August 1, 1866, the rental value of said premises during said period being 
$500 per month; that payment has been made for said use and occupation in the sum 
of $8,700, and that a balance of $15,300 is still due and owing for said use and occu- 
pation, of which sum one-half is due to the estate of decedent, to wit, the sum of $7,650. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the brief and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The decedent, David J. Jameson, was the owner of one-half of the building afore- 
said, and was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, from July 31, 1862, to August 
1, 1863, the military forces of the United States used and occupied a four-story brick 
house, for the use of the Army, situated on Front street, in the city of Memphis, State 
of Tennessee, of which the decedent owned one-half, the reasonable rental value for 
said dwelling during said period being the sum of $1,800, one-half of which is nine 
hundred dollars ($900). 

The city of Memphis was the seat of war until the 1st day of January, 1863, when 
it ceased to be such by the proclamation of the President of that date. 

III. The claim for said use and occupation was presented to Congress in 1874, and 
was referred to this court under the act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act, 
in 1884. On motion of the defendants the case was dismissed for nonpros ecution. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 21, 1902. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of April, 1902. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



206 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

NATHANIEL W. JONES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10858. Nathaniel W. Jones v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT. 

This claim, which, is for the value of stores and supplies, the property of claimant, 
alleged to have been taken from him by the military forces of the United States during 
the war of the rebellion, was originally presented to the Commissioners of War Claims 
and was disallowed by them because the claimant had in the meantime gone into 
bankruptcy. It was referred to the court by a resolution of the Senate on June 15, 
1902, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved on March 3, 1887, entitled 
"An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the United States," etc. 

The claimant in his petition alleges that there were taken from him and used by the 
Federal Army, under proper authority, during the war, 4,000 pounds of salt pork, of 
the value of $600 at that time, and 400 bushels of corn, of the value of $400. 

The case was heard on loyalty and merits by the court on the 2d day of May, 1905. 

Benjamin Carter, esq. , appearing at this hearing as attorney for the claimant, and the 
Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, his assistant, appearing for the protection 
and defense of the interests of the United States. 

Upon consideration of the evidence and the briefs and other argument of counsel 
the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Nathaniel W. Jones was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant in 
Maury County, Tenn., property as above described, which at the time and place of 
taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and eighty dollars ($480). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

B. F. McGREW, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE W. McGREW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12931. B. F. McGrew, administrator of estate of George W. 
McGrew, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of 
the United States for the use of the Army during the late civil war. 

On March 2, 1907, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court the 
following bill: 

"[S. 6337, Fjfty-ninth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the estate of George W. McGrew, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the legal representatives of the estate of George W. McGrew, late of Giles 
County, Tennessee, the sum of eleven thousand five hundred and sixty-two dollars 
and fifty cents, for quartermaster stores and supplies taken from the said George W. 
McGrew by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 22d day of March, 
1907, in which he makes the following allegations: 

That claimant is the administrator of George W. McGrew, who died intestate at his 
home in Giles County, Tenn., on the 26th day of August, 1905; that said George W. 
McGrew, during the war of the rebellion was loyal to the Government of the United 
States and never voluntarily gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion, and that during 
aid war said George W. McGrew resided in Giles County, Tenn. , where he was the owner 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 207 

of a large farm, whereon lie bad a large number of mules and horses and a large amount 
of corn, wheat, and hay; that during the month of November, 1863, the military- 
forces of the United States, under command of Gen. W. T. Sherman, while en route 
to Chattanooga, Tenn., took from said George W. McGrew mules and horses of the 
value of $5,675, and that a detachment of said army, left in occupation of the country, 
while stationed at Prospect, Giles County, Tenn., took corn, wheat, and hay to the 
value of $5,887.50; that a claim for the property aforesaid was presented to the Quar- 
termaster-General of the United States for payment and was disallowed by him for 
the reasons that it was not shown that the horses and mules were taken by proper 
authority and passed into the sei'vice and use of the Army, and because part of the 
claim was for commissary stores and supplies and not within his jurisdiction; and 
that no payment has ever been made therefor. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 12th day of December, 1907, on loyalty 
and merits. 

F. Carter Pope, esq., appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that George W. McGrew, deceased, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the' late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Giles County, Tenn., prop- 
erty of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place 
of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven thousand three hundred and fifteen 
dollars ($7,315), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-Genral in 1875 and by 
that officer disallowed August 24, 1878, because he was unable to certify to the just- 
ness of the same. Thereafter the same was referred to the court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 6, 1908. 
A true copy: 

Test this, 7th day of January, A. D. 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF CHARLESTON, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12938. Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tenn., 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 6479, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tennessee. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tennessee, the sum of two 
thousand five hundred and ten dollars, in full compensation for the property of said 
church taken, occupied, used, damaged, and consumed by the United States military 
forces during the civil war." 

The said church appeared in this court March 21, 1907, and filed its petition, in 
which it substantially averred that during the civil war the military authorities of the 
United States took possession of the building and grounds of the claimant and used and 
occupied the same for various military purposes for a long period of time; that said 
property consisted of a well-constructed brick church building, about 60 feet by 35 
feet in dimensions, with a tower; that the United States troops occupied it for housing 
commissary stores, and to some extent for barracks, from December, 1863, to about 



208 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

May, 1865; that they tore out the inside layer of brick for use in constructing camp 
chimneys, etc., and piled salt meat against the brick wall;' thus soaking the wall with, 
grease and oil so as to destroy the mortar, causing the wall to crack and become so un- 
safe that the entire building, as a result of this usage, had to be torn down; also the 
seats, pulpit, windows, shutters, and fence were destroyed as a result of said occupa- 
tion ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during the time it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to as good condition as it 
was before such occupation, was the sum of $2,510, for which no payment has been 
made; that evidence in support of this claim was sent to Washington years ago without 
result; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of 
the United States, and has not in anyway aided, abetted, or given encouragement to 
rebellion against the Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Decem- 
ber, 1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George 
F. Boren, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

t The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argumentfof 
counsel on both sides, makes the following - j 

FINDINGS OF FACT. —| 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tenn., as an organiza- 
tion was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Charleston, Tenn., and occupied and used the same for the storing of commissary 
supplies and for other purposes. The reasonable rental value of said property during 
the period of occupancy, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear 
and tear, was then and there the sum of nine hundred and sixty dollars ($960). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

III. Said claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to 
its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United 
States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limita- 
tions should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not hav- 
ing resorted to any established legal remedy 

By the Court. 
Filed January 6, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of January, 1908 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HEIRS OF OSWELL P. NEWBY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10109. Mrs. Mary K. Henry, Mrs. Alice A. Pope, Mrs. Jennie 
Alexander, and Nannie Newby, heirs of Oswell P. Newby, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This claim was first referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the 
House of Representatives on June 17, 1886, for findings of fact under the terms of the 
act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. Said refer- 
ence was docketed as Case No. 1105, Congressional, and the case was dismissed by this 
court February 3, 1896, for lack of jurisdiction. On February 27, 1887, the claim was 
also made the subject of a further reference to this court by the Committee on War 
Claims of the House of Representatives for findings of fact under said act approved 
March 3, 1883, and was docketed as Case No. 1799, Congressional, and was dismissed 
on February 3, 1896, for want of jurisdiction. 

On March 14, 1900, Senate bill No. 3587, Fifty-sixth Congress, was introduced for 
relief of the estate of said Oswell P. Newby, which bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of O. P. Newby, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the estate of O. P. Newby, deceased, late of Memphis, Tennessee, the sum of six 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 209 

thousand dollars for the use and occupation of buildings by the Federal forces during 
the war of the rebelion." 

Said bill was referred to this court on March 21, 1900, by resolution of the United 
States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and 
commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of December, 
1906. 

Moyer & Consaul appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. 
Campbell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The petitioners, in their petition, make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Madison, 
State of Tennessee ; that they are the sole heirs at law and devisees of Oswell P. Newby , 
deceased, late of Shelby County, in said State; that during the late civil war petitioners 
resided in the county of Haywood, State of Tennessee; that during said war the United 
States military forces, by proper authority, did take possession of certain land then 
belonging to petitioners, situate in the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee, upon 
which were situated two store buildings, being Nos. 207 and 209 on Main street, in said 
city of Memphis, and did hold possession of said premises from the summer or fall of 
1862 to the spring or summer of 1865, said possession of said premises continuing for a 
period of not less than two and one-half years; that the reasonable rental value of 
said premises during said period of occupancy by the United States was not less than 
$200 per month, making a total as follows: 

For use and occupation by United States military forces of two brick store 
buildings, Nos. 207 and 209 Main street, Memphis, Tenn., for two and one- 
half years, at $200 per month $6, 000 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

First. It appears from the evidence that Oswell P. Newby, deceased, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war, 

Second. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of the buildings in Memphis, Tenn., belonging to 
claimant's decedent and used the same for military purposes from the summer or fall 
of 1862 to the spring or summer of 1865, a period of about two and one-half years. 
The reasonable rental value of said buildings for such period was the sum of four 
thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

Third. This claim was presented to Congress prior to the passage of the act of March 
3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. The foregoing comprises all the evi- 
dence relating to the prosecution of this claim prior to its reference to this court. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 17, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, LOUDON, TENN. 

[Court of-Claims. Congressional, No. 11008. The Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Term., v. The United 
• States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for the use, occupation, destruction, and consumption of material in 
above church by the military forces of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion. On the 3d day of March, 1903, the United States Senate 
referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 102, Fifty-seventh Congress, First session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Loudon County, Tennessee. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 14 



210 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

thousand two hundred dollars to A. W. Wood, J. A. Greer, and J. J. Harrison, elders and 
trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Loudon County, Tennessee, as compen- 
sation for the use, occupation, destruction, and consumption of material, in the winter 
of eighteen hundred and sixty-three to eighteen hundred and sixty-four, by the United 
States Army, of the Presbyterian Church building at that place." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 24th day of March, 1904, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred that: 

Said church was loyal to the United States throughout the civil war; during the 
winter of 1863-64 the convalescent corps of Sherman's army encamped near the town 
of Loudon, Tenn., and tore down said church and removed the lumber and timbers 
just outside of the town, and constructed winter quarters; said building was between 
35 and 40 feet wide, and between 60 and 70 feet deep, constructed of good material; 
the loss sustained was $2,200. ^ 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of April , 
1907. 

Burton T. Doyle, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church property described in the petition, used and occupied 
and afterwards tore down the same, and used the materials therein contained in the 
construction of winter quarters. Said use and occupation and appropriation of 
material at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand two 
hundred dollars ($1,200), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of 
the act of March 3, 1887, hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 6, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of January, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LEONIDAS THOMPSON, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11405. Leonidas Thompson, administrator of the estate of 
Mathew Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

On February 22, 1904, Senate bill No. 4498, Fifty-eighth Congress, was introduced, 
which bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury" of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased, late of Shelby 
County, Tennessee, the sum of three thousand eight hundred and forty-five dollars, ' 
in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Fed- 
eral forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill, with accompanying papers, was transmitted to this court by resolution of 
the Senate on April 26, 1904, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of the 
act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Febru- 
ary, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, Esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



211 



The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Shelby, 
State of Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator 
de bonis non of the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased, late of said county and State; 
that during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, resid- 
ing near German town, in said county and State; that during said war the United 
States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted 
to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies 
of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 

Taken from farm of decedent, 1J miles east of Germantown, Tenn., in December, 
1862, and January, 3863, by troops under command of Colonel McCrillas and by 
Seventh Kansas Cavalry and other troops stationed in and about Germantown: 

600 bushels shelled corn, at 80 cents per bushel $480 

3 tons fodder, at $20 per ton 60 

5 mules, at $125 each 625 

700 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 700 

15,000 feet of lumber, at $10 per 1,000 feet 150 

50 hogs, at $5 each 250 

40 cords of wood, at $3 each 120 

2 cows, at $25 each , 50 

Total 2, 335 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the decedent, Mathew Brown, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the decedent, in the county of Shelby, State of Tennes- 
see, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above 
described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand 
four hundred and twenty dollars ($1,420), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

III. The claim was not presented to the Quartermaster-General or the Southern 
Claims Commission. Under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), 
which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim, the 
court shall report whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or 
which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any estab- 
lished legal remedy, it is shown in evidence that the decedent had no knowledge 
whatever of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission in the early seventies, 
and that if he had had such knowledge it would have been impossible for him to 
have taken any action in the prosecution of his claim against the Government, being 
physically unable by reason of ill health to have hunted up his witnesses and secured 
the necessary evidence; that said decedent died in 1872 and that none of the parties 
interested knew of any means by which they could collect the claim for property 
taken during the civil war. 

As to the question whether the facts so stated are sufficient or insufficient to excuse 
the claimant, the court makes no finding, that question being entirely within the 
iudgment and discretion of Congress. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 12, 1906. 



A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] 



John Bandolph, 
Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



212 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF CHRISTIAN CHURCH, FRANKLIN, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 13110. Trustees of trie Christian Church, of Franklin Tenn. 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of 
the United States during the late civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United 
States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 8150, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church, in Franklin, Williamson County, 

Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Christian Church, in Franklin, Williamson County, in the State of 
Tennessee, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars for use and occupation of and 
damage to church building and furnishings by the military forces of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 25th day of March, 1907, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the month of November, 1864, the military forces of the United States, 
under command of General Opdyke, took possession of the church building of the 
Christian Church at Franklin, Tenn. , and used and occupied the same for hospital and 
other purposes until after the close of the war. That during said occupancy the walls 
of the church were damaged, and the pews, pulpit, furniture, fixtures, doors, and 
windows were removed and destroyed. 

That the reasonable rental value of the building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building and contents to the condition in 
which they were at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of 
$1,500, no part of which has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of Feb- 
ruary, 1908. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Christian Church of Franklin, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition, and used and occupied 
the same for hospital and other purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable 
rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and twenty dollars 
($620.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim- 
ant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 213 

TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF CLARKS- 

VILLE, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11698. Trustees .of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of 
Clarksville, Term., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887,. known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Ten- 
nessee, the sum of one thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars and sixty cents, for 
use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Tenn., ap- 
peared and filed their petition in this court August 29, 1905, in which they make the 
following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Decem- 
ber, 1862, the military forces of the United States under command of Col. Landers 
Bruce took possession of the church building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 
of Clarksville, Tenn., and by proper anthority the said military forces continued to 
occupy said building until on or about May, 1865. That the reasonable rental value 
of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary 
to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession, was the sum of $1,241.60, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of 
Clarksville, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the 
Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clarksville, Tenn., and used and occupied the 
same for military purposes until about May, 1865. The reasonable rental value of 
said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary 
to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession of the same, was the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was originally presented to the Quartermaster-General under the 
act of July 4, 1864, and was by him disallowed on the ground that a majority of the 
members were disloyal. 

Thereafter the same was presented to the Treasury Department and was disal- 
lowed June 26, 1889, on the ground that the claim was not within the jurisdiction 
of the accounting officers. 

The claim was thereafter referred to the court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



21,4 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF CLIFTON, 

TENN. 

[ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11009. Trustees Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, 

Term., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1903, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 103, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

' 'A BILL For the relief of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at 
Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full of all claims of said 
church for the use, occupation, consumption, damage, and destruction of its property 
during the late war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, and 
the acceptance of said sum shall be a complete and absolute bar to any and all claims 
of said church for damages against the United States. ' ' 

The trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Tenn., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court October 31, 1905, in which they make the follow- 
ing allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 1st 
of January, 1864, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of the church building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clifton, 
Tenn. , and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the month of August 
of the same year. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the 
reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including 
the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the 
time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $1,500, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of February, 
1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

J . It appears from the evidence that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion 
the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the 
Government of the United States. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building belonging 
to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Tenn., and used and occupied 
the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building, together 
with repairs rendered necessary by reason of said occupancy, was nine hundred and 
eighty dollars ($980), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never filed before any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 215 

TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WAVERLY, 

TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12487. Trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of 
Waverly, Term., v. The United States.] . 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

T This is a claim for use of and damage to a chur.ch building by the military forces of 
the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United 
States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 3962, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Waverly, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Waverly, Humphreys 
County, Tennessee, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, in full payment 
for the use and occupation and for damages done to said church property by the 
Federal soldiers during the late civil war. " 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of December, 1906, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Sep- 
tember, 1863, the military forces of the United States, under command of Col. J. B. 
Dorr, of the Eighth Iowa Cavalry, took possession of the church building of the Cum- 
berland Presbyterian Church, of Waverly, Tenn., and used and occupied the same 
for military purposes. That thereafter various other commands of the United States 
Army used and occupied the said building, the same being almost continuously occu- 
pied from the fall of 1863 until the spring of 1865. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,500, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Decem- 
ber, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Waverly, Tenn., as an organization 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church property of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of 
Waverly, Tenn., and occupied and used the same for quarters for the housing of 
troops and for other purposes. The reasonable rental value of said property during 
said period of occupancy, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear 
and tear, was then and there the sum of one thousand and forty dollars ($1,040). No 
payment appears to have been made therefor. 

III. Said claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to 
its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United 
States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limita- 
tions should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not hav- 
ing resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 6, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



216 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF HIRAM LODGE, NO. 7, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, 
OF FRANKLIN, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11697. Trustees of Hirain Lodge, No. 7, F. and A. M., of Franklin, 

Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of Hiram Lodge, Number Seven, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin 

Tennessee. 

''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to Hiram Lodge, Number Seven, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin, Tennessee, 
the sum of six thousand dollars for use of and damage to lodge property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of Hiram Lodge, No. 7, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin, Tenn., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court April 12, 1905, in which they make the 
following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about the 
fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took posses- 
sion of the lodge building of Hiram Lodge, No. 7, Free and Accepted Masons, situate 
at Franklin, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said 
date at various times until the fall of 1865; that by reason of such occupancy the 
building was greatly damaged, and the reasonable rental value thereof during the 
period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to 
the condition in which it was at the time the said military authorities first took pos- 
session of the same, was the sum of $6,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of Decem- 
ber, 1905. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Hiram Lodge, No. 7, F. and A. M., of Frank- 
lin, Tenn., as a lodge, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the 
war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, used and occupied the lodge building of Hiram 
Lodge, No. 7, F. and A. M., of Franklin, Tenn., for military purposes. By reason of 
such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value thereof dur- 
ing the period of such occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the build- 
ing to the condition in which it was at the time the military forces of the United 
States took possession of the same, was the sum of twenty-one hundred and twenty 
dollars ($2,120), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 2, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 217 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF CHATTA- 
NOOGA, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11700. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Chattanooga, Term., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war. On the 27th day of April, 1904, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 3592, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Chattanooga, Ten- 
nessee. 

" Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amwica 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Chinch South, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, 
the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church 
building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebel- 
lion." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 12th day of January, 1905, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about the 
month of September, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took possession of the church building and used and occupied the same for hos- 
pital and other purposes until the close of the war. 

That by reason of such occupancy the building was greatly damaged, and the reason- 
able rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said 
military authorities first took possession, was the sum of $3,500, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of December, 
1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Chattanooga, Tenn., as an organiza- 
tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the 
petition about September, 1863, and used and occupied the same for hospital and 
other purposes until the close of the war, and damaged the same. The reasonable 
value of such use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of the 
ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of $1,800, no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

III. Said claim was originally presented to the Quartermaster-General under the 
act of July 4, 1864, by whom it was disallowed because of insufficient evidence. There- 
after the United States Senate by resolution referred the case to this court under the 
act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. No further action is shown to have 
been taken by the claimant looking to the prosecution of the claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 9, 1907. 

A true copy. ■ 

Test this 19th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



218 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, FRANKLIN, 

TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12524. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Franklin.. Term., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13. 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 3828, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Franklin, Ten- 
nessee, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church 
building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the re- 
bellion." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tenn., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which they make the 
following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession 
of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tenn., 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the spring of 1865, said 
building being used by Colonel Opedyke, of the One hundred and twenty-fifth Ohio 
Volunteer Infantry, and others. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in 
which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of 
$2,500, for which no payment has'been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of Janu- 
ary, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. 
W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United. States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Franklin, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Franklin. Tenn.. and occupied the same for about two years for hospital 
purposes and barracks. The reasonable rental value thereof at the time and place, 
together with the damage done to said property in excess of the ordinary wear and 
tear, was the sum of eight hundred and seventy- five dollars ($875.00), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why such 
was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 28, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of November, 1907. 
[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 219 

TRUSTEES OF MILL CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11696. Trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson 
County, Tennessee, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act : 

' ' fS. 3586. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Tennessee. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- 
ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Ten- 
nessee, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use of and damage to church property by 
the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Tenn., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court July 19, 1904, in which they make the following 
allegations : 

That during the fall of 1862 the military authorities of the United States, under 
command of Generals Wood and Buell and Colonel Cotton, of the Third Kentucky 
Regiment, took possession of the church building of the said Baptist Church and used 
and occupied the same for commissary and other purposes from said date until May, 
1865, a period of about thirty-one months. 

That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental 
value thereof during said period, including the repairs necessary to restore the said 
building to the condition in which it was when said occupancy began, was the sum 
of |2,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits -on the 6th day of Febru- 
ary, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Mill Creek Baptist Church, Davidson 
County, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Mill Creek Baptist Church, 
Davidson County, Tenn., was taken possession of by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, and used for commissary and other purposes for a period 
of about thirty-one months. Said use and occupation, together with damages inci- 
dental thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand six hundred and fifty 
dollars ($1,650). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 13, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of February, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF MOUNT ZION CHURCH, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENN. 

[Courtiof±Claims. Congressional, No. 12483. Trustees of Mount Zion Church, Williamson County, 

Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use, occupation, and damage to the Mount Zion Church, of William- 
son County, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States during the war for the 



220 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

suppression of the rebellion. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate 
referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 4241, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 
' A BILL For the relief of the Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tennessee, the sum of 
one thousand five hundred dollars, in full payment for the use, occupation, and dam- 
age to the buildings and property of said church by the United States military authori- 
ties during the late civil war. ' ' 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court on the 24th day of September, 
1906, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That the Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tenn., as a church, was loyal 
to the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that 
about 1862 or 1863 the military forces of the United States, under proper orders, took 
possession of said building and property and carried away the materials of which 
said building was constructed to a place called Daddys Knob, where the said army 
was in camp, and used said material for the construction of quarters for said troops, 
and also for fuel and other purposes, the result of which was a total loss to said organ- 
ization, and for which said church asks that the sum of $2,300 be paid to said trustees. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of April, 
1907.* 

H. M. Foote appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Branni- 
gan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tenn., as an organization, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church property described in the petition, used and occupied 
the same, and used some of the material from said church building in the construction 
of quarters for said troops. Said use and occupation and appropriation of material 
was at the time and place reasonably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred 
dollars ($1,300), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions 
of the act of March 3, 1887, hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 6, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of November, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, FRANKLIN, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12517. Trustees of the Presbyterian, Church of Franklin, 

Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 2298, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not atherwise appro- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 221 

priated, to the trustees of trie Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tennessee, the sum 
of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, for use and occupation of and damage 
to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late 
civil war. - ' 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of December, 1906, and filed 
their petition in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about Novem- 
ber 30, 1864, the military forces of the United States, by Surgeon Henry, of the One 
hundred and twenty-fifth Ohio Regiment of Infantry, took possession of the church 
building of the Presbyterian Church, at Franklin, Tenn., and used and occupied'the 
same for hospital purposes until February, 1865. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it 
was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,250, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the llthj day of Feb- 
ruary, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, for then use, took possession of the church property of the Presbyterian 
Church of Franklin, Tenn., about the time of the battle at that place and used and 
occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about two months, removing 
therefrom the pews, pulpit, and other furnishings, which, together with the walls 
of the building, were materially damaged. The reasonable rental value of the build- 
ing, together with the damage done thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
the sum of eight hundred dollars (S800), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of March 3, 
1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the same was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF UNION UNIVERSITY, OF MURFREESBORO, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11401. Trustees of Union University of Murfreesboro, Tenn., 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 28, 1904. by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

" [S. 5666, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Union University, of Murfreeshoro, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Union University, of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the sum of 
five thousand four hundred and seventy-four dollars, for the use and occupation of 
the university buildings and grounds by the Army of the United States during the 
late war of the rebellion, ana for the injuries to the buildings during such occupation; 
and also the sum of twelve thousand eight hundred dollars for six thousand four hun- 
dred books, and the additional sum of three thousand five hundred dollars for philo- 



222 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

sophical and chemical apparatus, all of which belonged to said university and were 
taken from the said buildings during said military occupation; the total amount hereby 
appropriated being twenty-one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four dollars." 

The trustees of Union University appeared and filed their petition in this court 
April 12, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late civil war and in the spring of 1862, the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the buildings and grounds of 
Union University, situate at Murfreesboro, Tenn., and used and occupied the same 
for hospital purposes until on or about the month of December, 1864, when the said 
buildings were completely dismantled, the furniture, fixtures, books, philosophical 
and chemical apparatus were taken, used or destroyed, and the windows, doors, 
flooring, and other woodwork were removed from the buildings and used in the con- 
struction of a hospital near the town of Murfreesboro. 

That by reason of such use and occupation and removal of material, etc. . as aforesaid, 
the United States is justly indebted to the said Union University as follows :_, 

For rent from the spring of 1862 to December, 1864, and for re pahs $5, 474 

For 6,400 books, at $2 per volume 12, 800 

For philosophical and chemical apparatus 3, 500 

Total 21,774 

no part of which has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of December, 
1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the civil war the Union University of Murfreesboro, Tenn. , as such univer- 
sity, was loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the university building of the Union University, at Murfreesboro, 
Tenn., and used the same for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was so used and occupied, including necessary repairs 
incident to such occupation, was the sum of five thousand four hundred and seventy- 
four dollars ($5,474). 

III. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of the 
original occupancy of the building, property of the Union University at Murfreesboro, 
Tenn., by the military forces of the United States, there was a library of valuable 
books in the said building, which belonged to the said university, then and there 
reasonably worth the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500). 

IV. There was also in said building at the time the same was seized and occupied 
by the military forces of the United States philosophical and chemical apparatus rea- 
sonably worth the sum of seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750). 

V. At some time between the occupation of the buildings by the military forces of 
the United States and before the same were finally vacated by the said military forces 
$500 worth of the books disappeared from the buildings, but the evidence does not 
establish to the satisfaction of the court who took the said books from the said library. 

VI. That about the time the buildings were being vacated by the military forces of 
the United States the contents of said buildings, embracing books reasonably worth 
six thousand dollars ($6,000) and the philosophical and chemical apparatus reasonably 
worth seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750), were depredated upon and taken 
away by an Iowa cavalry regiment. The furniture in the buildings was also taken 
therefrom by the aforementioned regiment. Included in the necessary repairs inci- 
dent to the occupation, such as taking away the furniture and benches, an allowance 
is made as set forth in Finding II. 

VII. The competent evidence in the case does not establish to the satisfaction of 
the court what disposition was made of the six thousand dollars ($6,000) worth of books 
and the seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750) worth of chemical and philosoph- 
ical apparatus. 

VIII. It does not appear to the satisfaction of the courljjipon the competent evidence 
in the case that the property was taken for the use.of the United States or that the said 
books reasonably worth six thousand dollars ($6,000) and philosophical and chemical 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 223 

apparatus reasonably worth seventeen hundred and fifty dollars (SI. 750) were used by 
the Army. As to the last two items the evidence does establish a depredation. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 10, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BAPTIST CHURCH, TULLAHOMA, TENN. 

[Court of Chums. Congressional case„No. 11049. Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Teiui., v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, arising from the alleged demolition of a certain 
building used as a house of worship by the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., by 
the military forces of the United States, during the late war for the suppression of the 
rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate, on 
the 3d day of March, 1903. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 26th dav of October, A. D. 
1903. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

Claimant in its petition makes the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the Baptist Church of 
Tullahoma, Tenn., was the owner of a certain lot in the town of Tullahoma, State of 
Tennessee, on which was situated a certain building used as a house of worship; that 
during said war said building was used and occupied for a time by the United States 
military forces, and was thereafter, to wit, about the winter of 1864 or 1865, torn down 
by said military forces and the materials secured from said building and other improve- 
ments upon said premises, were carried away and converted to the use of the United 
States Army, to the damage and loss of said church in the sum of $2,000. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments on both 
sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., as a 
church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war of 
the rebellion. 

II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority and for the use of the Army, took possession of and tore down the 
church building belonging to the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., and used the 
material thereof, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum 
of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200). 

It does not appear that payment has ever been made for any part thereof. 

III. There is no evidence on file showing that the claim was ever presented to any 
department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to 
this court under the Tucker Act aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 2, 1903. 

A true copy. 

Test, this 11th day of December, 1903. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



224 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

HOWARD LODGE. NO. 13, INDEPENDENT ORDER ODD FELLOWS, 

GALLATIN, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11624. Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd 
% Fellows, of Gallatin, Tenn., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

In the above-entitled claim for the use, occupation, and damage to the interior 
fittings of the buildings known as the Howard Female Institute, a girls' school, located 
in Gallatin, Tenn., and a brick building located on the public square known as the 
Odd Fellows Hall, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil 
war, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress, first session, for the relief of 
the claimant, being Senate bill No. 806. Said bill reads as follows : 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the treasurer of Howard Lodge, Numbered Thirteen, Inde- 
pendent Order of Odd Fellows, of Gallatin, Tennessee, the sum of seven thousand 
four hundred and forty-eight dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to reimburse said lodge Numbered Thirteen, Independent Order of 
Odd Fellows, for the use, occupation, and destruction of its buildings and other property 
consumed and destroyed by soliders of the United States during the late war. ' ' 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on the 27th day of 
April, 1904, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, 
commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 
1908. 

George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That during the civil war the Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd 
Fellows, of Gallatin, Tenn., did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion, but was 
throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. 

That the following property belonging to said Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent 
Order of Odd Fellows, was, by direction of officers of the United States Army, occupied 
and used by said Army — date, place, and command being particularly stated below: 

In Gallatin, Tenn., from November, 1862, to August, 1865, by the Eleventh Michi- 
gan, Sixty-ninth Ohio, and Ninth Indiana Regiments Volunteer Infantry, U. S. 
Army, to wit: 

Howard Female Institute sustained the following loss: 

40 double desks, at $10 $400 

3 blackboards, at $10 30 

2 large brick privies, at $200 : 400 

1 hothouse, brick and glass 300 

Lumber (fencing) " 150 

Stable and shed .' 150 

1 round center table 20 

6 small tables, at $5 30 

6 coal grates, at $10 60 

Plastering and papering 300 

Rent of building occupied by Medical Department, U. S. Army, for hospital 
purposes from November, 1862, to August 1, 1865, thirty-three months, at 

$100 per month. 3, 300 

The following was taken from Odd Fellows Hall : 

Counters, shelving, drawers and desk, all taken from room fitted up for dry 

goods store 300 

Counters, shelving, desk and drawers, all taken from room fitted up as drug 

store 400 

1 pair window shutters and transom light 14 

1 stove and pipe 25 

6 windows, glass and sash (damaged) 25 

6 oilcloth window blinds 24 

Papering on wall 40 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 225 

The lodge room sustained the following loss: 

1 bookcase and desk (large) $70 

48 dining office chairs, at $5 240 

Lodge regalia and emblems 200 

8 window shades, $40; window sash and glass, $100 140 

2 tables, at $5 : 10 

8 door locks 30 

Damage to papering, plastering, sprinklers, etc 50 

Bethel Encampment, No. 9, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, sustained 
the following loss: 

Camp regalia, tent crooks, jewels, furniture, and one large desk 510 

Total 7, 448 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Gallatin, Tenn., 
as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took possession of the lodge buildings described in the petition and used 
and occupied the same for hospital purposes and damaged the same. The reasonable 
rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages thereto in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two thousand three hundred 
dollars ($2,300), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was originally referred to the court by the Committee on War 
Claims of the House of Representatives on the 1st day of March, 1889, under the pro- 
visions of the act of March 3, 1883. known as the Bowman Act. Thereafter the claim 
was again referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 27th 
day of April, 1904, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker 
Act, and upon motion of the claimant, on May 25, 1904, the two causes were consoli- 
dated. Prior to the first presentation of the same to Congress and reference to this 
court as aforesaid, the claim had never been presented to any department of the Gov- 
ernment, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should- be 
removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to 
any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 
A true copv- 

Test this 8th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BAPTIST CHURCH AT BOLIVAR, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11005. Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman Countv, Tenn., 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 12th day of March, 1903, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tennessee. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate an d House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman 
County, Tennessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
the sum of four thousand dollars, in full of all claims of said church for the use, occu- 
pation, consumption, damage, and destruction of its property during the late war of 
the rebellion by the military forces of the United States; and the acceptance of said 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 15 



226 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

sum shall be a complete and absolute bar to any and all claims of said church for 
damages against the United States." 

The claimant appeared and filed its petition in this court October 9, 1903, in which 
the following allegations are made : 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Baptist Church at Boli- 
var, Tenn., was loyal to the Government of the United States; that at that time the 
Baptist Church was the owner of a substantial brick edifice which was well furnished 
for divine services, and in which its members worshiped until both the church build- 
ing and its furnishings were taken possession of by Brigadier-General Sturges, of the 
United States Army, and appropriated to the use of that Army as a pest or smallpox 
hospital, and afterwards burned; that the said property was taken possession of by 
the United States forces in the year 1862 or 1863, and used.as such smallpox hospital 
until May, 1863 or 1864; that said church building and its contents were worth, at 
the lowest and most reasonable estimate, the sum of $4,000. 

The court upon the evidence, after considering the briefs and argument of counsel 
on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Bolivar, Hardeman 
County, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States through 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the 
church building belonging to the Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman County, State 
of Tennessee, and used the same for about two years as a smallpox hospital, when the 
same was accidentally burned while in possession of such military forces. The use, 
occupation, damage to, and destruction of said property was then and there reason- 
ably worth the sum of three thousand four hundred. ($3, 400) dollars, no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 4, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11887. Board of Deacons of the First Baptist Church of 
Memphis, Tenn., v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for use and occupation of real estate belonging 
to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., by United States military forces 
during the late civil war, was first transmitted to this court by the Committee on War 
Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891, for findings of 
fact under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as 
the Bowman Act. The case so presented was designated as No. 8409 Congressional. 
Some testimony was taken under that reference. This court being without juris- 
diction of the claim under said reference, however, the occupation in question having 
commenced prior to January 1, 1863, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Con- 
gress for relief of claimant, being Senate bill No. 7159. Said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and Ho use of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee, the sum 
of five thousand dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and destruction 
of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on March 3, 1905, for 
findings of fact uuder the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly 
known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearin°i on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of January, 
1906. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 227 

Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by Phillip M. 
Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That during the late civil war the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., was the 
owner of certain real estate in said city of Memphis; that during said war there was 
situated upon said land a substantially constructed brick church building, about 50 by 
68 feet in dimensions, with) a large audience room and a basement under the same; 
that there were also situate upon said land a pastor's study and a certain frame house 
or dwelling containing two rooms and attic; that the value of said premises during the 
civil war was about $30,000; that during said war the United States military forces, 
under proper authority, took possession of said premises and used and occupied the 
same for hospital purposes for a period of at least twelve and one-half months; that 
during said period said premises were reasonably and fairly worth a monthly rental of 
at least $150; that claim is made as follows: 

To use and occupation of premises in city of Memphis, Tenn., comprising a two- 
story brick church building, a pastor's study, and one dwelling house from November 
12, 1862, to November 27, 1863, a period of twelve and one-half months, at $150 per 
month, $1,875. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 
I. 

It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church, of Memphis, Tennessee, 
as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building and other buildings belonging to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Ten- 
nessee, and used and occupied the same for a period of about twelve months. The 
reasonable rental value of said buildings for the period they were so occupied was the 
sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200.00), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 29, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 
• 
BOILING FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, COWAN, TENN. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12509. Boiling Fork Baptist Church v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims by order of the Senate of the 
United States on June 13, 1906, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 4417, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 
' 'A BILL For the relief of the Boiling Fork Baptist Church. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby 
is, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tennessee, the sum of 
two thousand dollars as compensation for the use and destruction of the said church 
building by the United States Army during the late civil war." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court September 25, 1906, by 
the trustees for the said church, J. W. Sargent, the elder, and Clem Jernigan, the 



228 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Clerk and deacon, the other trustees being Joe Delzell and J. S. Rollins, who con- 
sented to the action, and they make the following allegations: 

. That in the fall of 1863 this church was the owner of a brick building 30 feet by 60 
feet and one and one-half stories high, near Cowan, Tenn., and that the building was 
used regularly for public worship at that time by the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church. 

That in the fall of 1863 Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, commander of a portion of the United 
States Army, came through that part of the country and by the direction and com- 
mand of officers to this petitioner unknown, and without the consent of the church, 
caused the said building to be torn down and the bricks used to make brick ovens for 
the use of the Union Army, and also for building chimneys for the larger convalescent 
tents. And the said chinch building and the bricks were of the fair value of two 
thousand dollars ($2,000). 

That they are not informed as to what troops took the property, but knew they 
were under the command of General Rosecrans. 

That this claim was presented to the United States for payment in the Fifty-eighth 
Congress and in the Fifty-ninth Congress at the first session under Senate bill 4417, 
and was referred to this honorable court on or about September 24, 1906, under the 
Tucker Act for findings of fact. 

They claim the sum of $2,000 for the property taken and used by the Union Army, 
belonging to the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church, in the fall of 1863, in Cowan, 
Franklin County, Tenn. 

Under the decision of the court the question of loyalty does not arise in the case 
of a church claimant. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the merits and loyalty on March 4, A. D. 1907, 
Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Mr. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition in the fall of 1863 
and tore down the same and used the bricks therein contained for building chimneys 
and bake ovens. The bricks so used were then and there reasonably worth the sum 
of thirteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,310), no partof which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 
3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute 
of limitation should be waived or which shall excuse the claimant church for not 
having presented said claim to some Department of the Government prior to such 
presentation to Congress. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of December, A. D. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

UNIVERSITY OF NASHVILLE, OF NASHVILLE, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13135. University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tenn., v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- 
tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : 

"[S. 8484, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tennessee. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 229 

ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated- 
to the treasurer of the University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tennessee, the sum of 
thirteen thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental , 
injury to the property of said University by United States military forces during the 
civil war." 

The said university appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed its petition, in 
which it is substantially averred : 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession pf the property of the University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tenn., con- 
sisting of very large, extensive, and expensive buildings, one building being of stone, 
two stories in height, 150 feet long by 50 feet wide; another building of brick, 150 feet 
long by 50 feet wide, having three stories and about 65 rooms; another of brick, about 
100 feet by 30 feet in size, of two stories, and 20 acres of highly improved ground, and 
occupied the same, as shown by records of the institution, February 12, 1862, and 
continuously from that time until September 11, 1865, for military purposes, when 
said property, except one of said buildings, was vacated; that General Thomas's 
division of the Army encamped on said grounds and adjoining grounds in Septem- 
ber, 1862, and the grounds were used for drill purposes extensively; that, resulting 
from said occupation, the property was very greatly injured, trees cut down, fences 
destroyed, etc. ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occu- 
pation, in building the repairs necessary to restore the said property to the same 
condition in which it was before such occupation, was the sum of §15,000, for which 
no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance 
to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, 
abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of February , 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the 
defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. The University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period, from about February 12, 1862, to about September 11, 1865, 
the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, 
occupied and used the buildings and grounds of the claimant institution, and.damaged 
the same. The reasonable rental value, together with the damages occasioned by said 
occupation in addition to ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of seven 
thousand and three hundred dollars ($7,300), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no 
satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier presented. 

Note. — Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in the mak- 
ing up of these findings. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



230 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

A. A. WADE, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10072. A. A. Wade, administrator S. L. Carpenter deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause, for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during 
the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate on the 21st day of February, 1900, under the act of 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of December, 1902. 
Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. 
Collins, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Fayette County, State of Ten- 
nessee, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different 
times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said 
decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $852 and appro- 
priated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 

7,000 pounds fodder, at $1 per hundredweight $70 

2 mules, at $200 each 400 

700 pounds fodder, at $1 per hundredweight, taken March, 1864 ! 7 

1 mule, taken June 4, 1864. 200 

1 saddle 10 

4 blind bridles, at $2 each 8 

700 pounds fodder, at $1 per hundredweight 7 

150 bushels corn, at $1 : 150 

Total 852 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments o^ 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. There were taken from the claimant's decedent, in Fayette County, State of 
Tennessee, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind and character above described, 
which were reasonably worth at the time and place of taking the sum of four hundred 
and sixty-eight dollars ($468), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The evidence shows that the claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General, 
but the petition being unsigned, the same was not considered. Subsequently it was 
again presented to the Quartermaster-General, but as the time limited for the filing of 
claims before that officer had expired, the claim was barred. No evidence has been 
offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L. , 505), "bearing upon 
the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or apply- 
ing for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether 
the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to 
excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy." 

By the Court. 
Filed January 5, 1903. 
A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of January, 1903. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 231 

MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, ANTIOCH, TENN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13140. Tie Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Term., v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, ]907, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 8506, Fifty-ninth Congress, .second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Davidson Canity, Tennessee. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative* of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Davidson 
County, Tennessee, the sum of six hundred dollars, in full compensation for the 
occupation, use, and incidental injury to the property of said church by United States 
military forces during the civil war." 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their 
petition in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the property of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Tenn., con- 
sisting of a well-constructed brick building, about 60 by 40 feet in size, with base- 
ment, and occupied the same as quarters, and the seats, floor, and windows were 
greatly injured and the property generally greatly damaged as a result of said occu- 
pation. A claim for $600 as damages was filed in the Quartermaster-General's office 
about 1867, but no payment or allowance was ever made; that the reasonable rental 
value of said property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to 
restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum 
of $600, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times 
borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any 
way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said 
Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Davidson County, Tenn., as a church 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took possession of the church described in the petition and occupied the same at 
intervals from the spring of 1862 until the close of the war as quarters, and damaged 
the same. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), no 
part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General August 31, 
1867, and was rejected on the ground that the majority of the congregation was not 
loyai. The claim was thereafter presented to the Fifty-ninth Congress and referred 
to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in 
the statement of this case. 

No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier pre- 
sented to Congress. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of March, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



232 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TEXAS. 

MARY A. SHAW. 

[Court of Claims. No. 10921 Congressional. Mary A. Shaw v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 27th day of June, 1902, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

t " [S. 5322, Fifty-seventh Congress first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Mary A. Shaw. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Mary A. Shaw, of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thou- 
sand four hundred dollars, for property and supplies taken and used by Federal 
troops during the war of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court on the 6th day of August, 
1902, in which she makes the following allegations: 

That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Coipus Christi, Nueces County, 
State of Texas; that during the latter part of the year 1863 or the early part of the 
year 1864 a detachment of the United States Army under command of Capt. H. B. 
Doolittle, of the Twentieth Iowa Infantry Volunteers, took possession of her frame 
dwelling and tore down and carried away the materials therein, which materials were 
worth the sum of §1,400. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 1st day of March, 
1904. Wm. R. Andrews, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Geo. H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Mary A. Shaw was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the claimant's dwelling in 
Corpus Christi, Nueces County, State of Texas, and tore down and used the materials 
therein, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of 
seven hundred dollars ($700). 

III. It does not appear from the evidence that the claim was presented to any 
department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to 
this court under the act aforesaid. It, however, appears that the claimant is a woman 
of very limited education, not possessing sufficient knowledge of business affairs to 
conduct a correspondence to protect her interests, and that within a few years after 
the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, she first learned that there was a possibility 
of securing compensation for the taking of her property; that in 1894 all the papers 
were sent to Hon. William H. Grain, the member of Congress from Texas, who acknowl- 
edged receipt of same January 19, 1895, and who later turned them over to Mr. Phillip 
B. Thompson. Since that time no trace of the papers can be had. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 14, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of March, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 233 

VIRGINIA. * 

HEIRS OF LEMUEL J. BOWDEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11134. Rosa M. Bowden, Zenobia Porter, Mary E. Bowden, 
and Mary Bowden Gustin, heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, v. The United States.] 

FINDING OP LOYALTY. 

I. It appears from the evidences' that Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States thi'oughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

[seal.] By the Court. 

Filed May 16, 1904. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11884. Rosa M. Bowden, Zenobia Porter, Mary E. Bowden, and 
Martha Bowden Gustin, heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred, to the court on the 3d day of March, 1905, by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"|[S. 7119. Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the heirs of the late Senator Lemuel J. Bowden, of Virginia, 
the sum of five thousand dollars for the use and occupation of two dwelling houses 
belonging to the decedent, in the city of Williamsburg, Virginia, and the damage 
done to the grounds, fruit trees, shrubbery, and so forth, attached thereto, by the 
United States Army, during the war of eighteen hundred and sixty-one and eighteen 
hundred and s^xty-five." 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court March 23, 1905, in 
which they make the following allegations: That they are the only heirs of Lemuel J. 
Bowden, deceased, who died in the city of Washington, D. C. , on the 2d day of January, 
1864, while serving as a Senator from the State of Virginia in the Senate of the United 
States. That the said Lemuel J. Bowden was at all times loyal to the United States 
throughout the civil war. That the said decedent was in his lifetime the owner of 
two valuable dwelling houses in the city of Williamsburg, Va., which, after the said 
city came into the possession of the Union forces in the year 1862, were used and occu- 
pied by the said Union forces until after the termination of the war, during which 
time they were much abused and injured, together with the fruit trees, grounds, 
and shrubbery attached thereto. That your petitioners aver, to the best of their 
knowledge, information, and belief, that the sum of $5,000 would be a reasonable 
compensation for the said use and occupation and the damages sustained. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 15th of May, 1905. John Goode, esq., 
appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., 
his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the 
interests of the United States. 

The claimants' decedent was found loyal in May, 1904, in case No. 11134. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

gfjj FINDINGS OF FACT. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, used and occupied two dwelling 
houses belonging to the decedent, in the city of Williamsburg, State of Virginia, and 
damaged the grounds, fruit trees, shrubbery, and the premises generally. Said use 



234 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN" CLAIMS. 

and occupation and damage beirfg reasonably worth at the time the sum of three 
thousand five hundred and forty dollars ($3,540), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 4, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

HEIRSfOF LEWIS ELLISON. 

[Court of Claims. No. 11119, Congressional. Lews Ellison and Helen Louise Craflord, heirs of Lewis 
Ellison, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The above-entitled cause was referred to this court under the provisions of the act 
of March 3,1887, section 14, by resolution of the Senate referring the following bill 
(S. 4081, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) to the court: 

"A BILL For the relief of Louis Ellison. 

"Beit enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Louis Ellison sixteen thousand two hundred and seventy- 
five dollars, for property taken from Louis Ellison, deceased, by the United States 
troops during the war between the States." 

The heirs of Louis Ellison aver, and in their petition make, the following allegations: 

I. That Lewis Ellison and Helen Crafford are the heirs of Lewis Ellison, deceased, 
and that said decedent was, during the late war, a resident of the State of Virginia, and 
did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was, throughout the war, 
loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. That the following property belonging to Lewis Ellison was taken from him by 
the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command 
being particularly stated below: 

In James City, in the State of Virginia, on or about the years 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, 
the United States Army took the following property: 

Frame dwelling house 20 by 18 feet, 1J stories high, used for lumber $1, 500 

Stores and wharf house 1J stories high, 20 bv 18 feet 1, 200 

Warehouse, 24 by 16 feet 800 

Frame dwelling, 32 by 16 feet 1, 600 

Stable, crib, corn house 500 

150 panels of fence 150 

1,500 cords pine wood 6, 000 

4 young mules 800 

3 young horses 525 

1 wagon 100 

1 portable steam sawm . 2, 500 

Log wagon 200 

Log carrier 100 

4-horse omnibus 300 

Total 16, 275 

III. That a claim for said property was presented to the Fifty-seventh Congress, 
the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 

IV. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-seventh Congress and was 
by the Senate resolution of the said Fifty-seventh Congress referred to the Committee 

on Claims of said Senate by which committee it was on the day of March, 1903, 

referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act 
approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against 
the Government of the United States." 

V. That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or 
by any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of the claim and the 
only person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim, or any part 
thereof or interest therein, has been made; that the claimant is justly entitled to the 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 235 

amount herein claimed from the United States after allowing all just credits and 
offsets; that the claimant is a citizen of the United States. And the claimant believes 
the facts stated in this petition to be true. • 

The case was brought to a hearing on the subject of loyalty, and the court on the 
26th day of March, 1906, found that Louis Ellison, deceased, the person alleged to 
have furnished stores and supplies or from whom same are alleged to have been taken, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the merits on the 17th day of January, 1907, 
the claimant appearing by George A. and William B. King, his attorneys, and the 
United States by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, 
Special Attorney Malcolm A. Coles. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. There was taken from the claimants' decedent in James City, Va., during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, 
for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which 
at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five thousand one 
hundred and twenty dollars ($5,120), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

II. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and the reason given by the claimants 
for not doing so is that their decedent was declared a bankrupt in 1869; that he had 
19 persons dependent upon him; that he made an effort to collect the claim, but did 
not have sufficient money to carry it through. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SAMUEL FITZHUGH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11583. Samuel Fitzhugh, administrator of estate of Henry 
Fitzhugh, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This claim was originally presented by claimant's decedent to the Southern Claims 
Commission under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, and was by said 
Commission rejected. It was subsequently referred to this court by the Committee 
on War Claims of the House of Representatives under the terms of the act approved 
March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. 

The case was tried under said reference, claimant's decedent was found to have 
been loyal throughout the late civil war, and findings of fact were filed in the sum 
of $19,975. It was stated in said findings, however, that no allowance was made for 
tobacco, as it did not appear that it was used by the United States, and that no allow- 
ance was made for rent or damages, those items not being within the jurisdiction of 
the court under said reference. On April 26, 1904, Senate Bill No. 1840, Fifty-eighth 
Congress, for relief of estate of Henry Fitzhugh, was referred to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate, for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the 
act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads 
as follows: 

"A BILL For relief of the estate of Henry Fitzhugh, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the United States Treasury not other- 
wise appropriated, to the estate of Henry Fitzhugh, deceased, late of Spottsylvania 
County, Virginia, the sum of thirteen thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, in full 
compensation for the use, occupation, and damage to property and for tobacco taken 
and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing upon lovalty and merits on the 8th day of Jan- 
uary, 1906. 



236 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George 
M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Stafford County, Va., 
and that he is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of Henry Fitzhugh, 
who, during the war, resided in said county and State; that during said war the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of claimant's 
dwelling house and farm in the county of Stafford, State of Virginia, and used and 
occupied the same for hospital and camping purposes; that said occupation of said 
dwelling continued for a period of three months; that the reasonable rental value of 
said premises at that time was $100 per month; that the occupation of said farm con- 
tinued for the period of one year; that the reasonable rental value thereof for said 
period was $4,500; that the damage incident to such occupation was not less than 
$1,000; that the United States military forces also took from said decedent 15,000 
pounds of tobacco, reasonably worth, at the time and place of taking, 15 cents per 
pound. 

That this claim is now stated as follows: 

Occupation of dwelling for hospital purposes, three months, at $100 per month . . $300 

Occupation of farm for one year for camping purposes 4, 500 

Damage to real estate incident to said occupation 1, 000 

15,000 pounds of tobacco, at 15 cents per pound 2, 250 

Total 1 8, 050 

That this claim was presented by said decedent to the Southern Claims Commis- 
sion and was by said commission rejected; that it was referred to this honorable court 
by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives for findings of fact 
in accordance with the Bowman Act; that said case was docketed in this court as case 
No. 1201, Congressional; that loyalty was found, and thereafter findings of facts were 
filed in the sum of $19,975 for stores and supplies, it being expressly stated by the 
court in said findings that no allowance was made for tobacco nor for rent or damage, 
these items not being within the jurisdiction of the court under said reference. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after consideiing the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Under the former reference of this case under the act of March 3, 1883, known 
as the Bowman Act, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, found, on November 21, 
1892, that the claimant's decedent, Henry Fitzhugh, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the said war, and no evidence has been introduced 
under the reference of this case under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker 
Act, to change the conclusion of the court then reached. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, to wit, on or about Decern 
ber, 1862, at the time the first battle of Fredericksburg was fought, the military forces 
of the United States engaged therein were in part camped on the farm of the claimant's 
decedent, situated in Stafford County, Va., consisting of 600 or 700 acres of land, and 
the dwelling house on said farm was used as a hospital for the wounded Union soldiers 
about three months, and some of the outbuildings and slaves' quarters were torn down 
and used by the troops at the time of the engagement for fuel and cooking purposes. 

A portion of the Army was likewise camped on the farm of claimants' decedent 
and in the vicinity thereof at the time of the second battle of Fredericksburg, at 
which time other outbuildings and slaves' quarters were torn down and used for fuel 
and cooking purposes. A portion of said farm was occupied by the military forces 
of the United States for camping purposes at the times of both battles of Fredericks- 
burg and subsequently at different times, amounting in all to about six months' con- 
tinuous occupation of different portions of said farm. 

The reasonable value for the use of the dwelling house for hospital purposes and 
for damage to and destruction of the property during the engagements as aforesaid 
was $1,800, for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. Also during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, at or about the time of 
the first and second battles of Fredericksburg, in said Stafford County, Va., various 
soldiers belonging to the military forces of the United States took for their individual 
use and purposes, while officers were present, about 15,000 pounds of tobacco in the 
leaf, a portion of which had been pressed and put into hogsheads, while some was in 
the tobacco press at the time. A portion was taken away in wagons. h^ ^j 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 237 

The reasonable value of the tobacco in the condition in which it was at the time and 
place was $1,500, for which no payment appears to have been made. 

IV. Laches. — The claims hereinbefore set forth were presented by the claimant's 
decedent, together with other claims for quartermaster and commissary stores, to the 
Southern Claims Commission, then amounting in the aggregate to $75,965. The claim 
was rejected by that tribunal on the ground of the want of proof of the claimant's loy- 
alty. The claim was afterwards referred to the Court of Claims by the Committee on 
War Claims of the House of Representatives on or about August, 1886, under' the pro- 
visions of the act of March 3, 1883, and was docketed in the court as No. 1201, Con- 
gressional. Under that reference the court, on November 1, 1892, found the claimant 
to have been loyal, and in January, 1894, the court made and reported to Congress 
its findings of fact in the case, wherein there was allowed to the claimant the sum of 
$19,975; but no allowance was made for the items of tobacco, nor for rent and dam- 
ages to the farm, and in respect to the item of tobacco it was recited in said findings 
of fact that "No allowance is made in said amount for tobacco, as it does not appear 
that it was used by the United States. No allowance is made for rent or damages as 
claimed in said petition, those items not being within the jurisdiction of the court." 

Thereafter, on April 26, 1906, the claim for rent and damage aforesaid, as well as 
for the tobacco, was referred to the court by resolution of the Senate, under the pro- 
visions of the act of March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of December, 1906. 

[seal ] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ROBERT G. GRIFFIN AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11140. Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Isaac P. 
Cromwell, administrators of the estate of Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased, sole heirs of the estate of 
Robert Anderson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 2d day of March, 1903, by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL for the relief of Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Isaac P. Cromwell, administra- 
tors of Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Isaac P. Cromwell, administrators of 
the estate of Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased, the sum of sixty-one thousand six hundred 
and eighteen dollars, for the use and occupation of buildings and for stores and sup- 
plies taken for the use of the Army by the military authorities of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' 

The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court April 24, 1903, in 
which they make the following allegations: 

That they have a claim against the United States for property taken, used, and 
occupied by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use 
of the Army during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, at Yorktown, in 
the county of York, and State of Virginia, as follows - 

For one house, known as " Swan Tavern " $3, 000 

For one house, known as " Belven House" 1, 000 

For use and occupancy of three houses and wharf from May, 1862, to June, 1865 . 5, 000 
1,317 acres of timber, 40 cords per acre, 52,680 cords of wood, at $1 per cord 52, 680 

Total 61, 680 

(TakenfbyiGenerals^Keyes, Wistar, and others.) 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 4th day of May, 
1904. G. W. Z. Black appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. 
Ashford, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 



238 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimants herein, Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Hannah T. 
Cromwell, deceased, negroes and minors, were loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, used and occupied the claimants' buildings, situ- 
ate in the county of York, State of Virginia, for a period of about two years, during 
which time said real estate was not at the seat of war. The reasonable value of said 
use and occupation during said period was the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500). 

Said military forces also took for the use of the Army from the claimants' premises, 
and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, timber of the kind 
and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably 
worth the sum of sixteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-five dollars ($16,975), 
or in all the sum of eighteen thousand four hundred and seventy-five dollars ($18,475), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim for the use and occupation of real estate was presented to the Com- 
missioners of Claims, but as that tribunal did not have jurisdiction no further action 
was taken thereon with reference thereto. In 1888 the claim was placed in the hands 
of an attorney of Richmond for the purpose of having the same referred to the Court 
of Claims; and on March 2, 1903, the claim was referred to the court by resolution of 
the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth in 
the statement. No further action appears to have been taken by the parties looking 
to the prosecution of their claim, and the same not having been presented to any 
department of the Government except as above stated is barred. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 16, 1904. 
A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] „ John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MAKEMIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DRUMMONDTOWN, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Term 1906 and 1907. Congressional, No. 11030. Makemie Presbyterian Church, of 
Drummondtown, Va., v. The United States.] 

statement of' case. 
The following bill was introduced in Congress: 

"[S. 1532, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session!] 
"A BILL For the relief of Makemie Presbyterian Church. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
appropriated, to the trustees of Makemie Presbyterian Church, at Accomac Court- 
House, Accomac County, Virginia, four hundred dollars, the same being in full for, 
and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full and final discharge of, 
its claim for the occupancy of and damage to the church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war between the States, and for which no 
payment has been made." 

That by resolution of the Senate of the Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, on the 
31st day of March, 1903, the claim was referred to this court for a finding of. the facts 
in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to 
provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States." 

The plaintiff in its petition makes the following allegations: That the church build- 
ing was occupied some time in 1861 until the close of the war by United States troops 
as follows: Company A, Purnell's legion, Maryland Cavalry; a troop of Delaware 
Cavalry; a troop of Pennsylvania Cavalry, commanded by Captain Skelly,. and a part 
of a negro regiment, and that while so occupied by said military forces, all the interior 
fittings and part of the walls were removed and used for the benefit of the United 
States, and that in consequence of the destruction of the pews and windows and 
damage to the walls by said, military forces, the building was not again occupied as a 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIjST CLAIMS. 239 

place of worship until 1869. That the value of the occupation of said building by the 
troops and the amount of damage to the building was as follows: 

Damage to church and interior fittings $770 

Use and occupation for four years, at $150 per year A 600 

Total... .• 1, 370 

That no claim was ever presented to the United States for the use, occupation, and 
damage to the said church property except as hereinbefore stated, but the church 
edifice was partly repaired by the claimant and used as a place of worship some time 
in 1869. 

The case was brought to a hearing on the 6th day of May, 1907, George A. & William 
B. King appearing for the claimant, and Malcolm A. Coles, esq., assistant to the 
Assistant Attorney-General, and by his direction appearing for the defense and pro- 
tection of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Makemie Presbyterian Church, Of Drummondtown, Va., as an organization 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States by proper authority 
took possession of the church property described in the petition and used the same 
at various times for general military quarters and damaged the same. The reasonable 
value of said use and occupation, together with damages in excess of the ordinary 
wear and tear, was then and there the sum of four hundred dollars ($400). 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions 
of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 13, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, MIDDLETOWN, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11686. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church of Middle- 
town. Va., v. The United States.] 

By resolution of the United States Senate, on April 27, 1904, the following bill was 
referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the provisions of section 
14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit: 

"[S. 3059. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury of the United 
States not otherwise appropriated, to the 'Methodist Episcopal Church of Middle- 
town, Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in 
full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal 
forces during the late civil war. " 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
October, 1905. 

Movers and Consul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- 
colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That they are citizens of the United States, and residents of the county of Freder- 
ick, State of Virginia; that they are the duly elected and acting trustees of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church of Middletown, Frederick County, Va.; that during the late 
civil war said church was the owner of certain land at Middletown, Va., upon which 
was situated the house of worship used by said church organization; that during said 
war the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, took possession 



240 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of said building and used the same as a hospital and later as a commissary depot; that 
by such use and occupation said building was greatly damaged and injured, and that 
to repair said building and restore it to its condition at the time said forces took pos- 
session thereof, actually cost said church not less than $1,500. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 
I. 

It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church of Middletown, 
Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church of Middletown, Virginia, and used and occupied the same as a 
hospital, and later as a commissary depot, and damaged the same. Such use and 
occupation, including damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of 
eight hundred and fifty-one dollars ($851). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WALTER M. MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR OF LEWIS M. MILLER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11900. Walter M. Miller, administrator, Lews M. Miller, de- 
ceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for cord wood and rails alleged to have been taken by or furnished 
to the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. 

The claim was first referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the 
House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883, and on January 18, 1904, 
was dismissed by the court for want of jurisdiction. 

Thereafter, on March 3, 1905, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to 
the court, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill in the 
following words: 

' ' [58th Congress, 3d session, S. 5932.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Lewis M. Miller, deceased. 

' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the estate of Lewis M. Miller, deceased, late of Frederick County, Virginia, the 
sum of seven thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, for stores and supplies taken 
by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. ' ' 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 28th day of April, 
1906, in which it is substantially averred: 

That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Frederick County, State of 
Virginia, where his decedent resided during the late civil war; 

That there was taken from his said decedent by the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, at different times during the late civil war, and appro- 
priated to the use of the Army, property of the kind and value, as follows: 

4,500 cords of wood, at $1.50 $6, 750 

30,000 rails (333| cords), at $3 1, 000 

Total 7, 750 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 241 

Taken during the winter of 1864-65 by the Eighth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-second 
New York Cavalry, and the First Vermont Cavalry. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy 
M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Lewis M. Miller, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the late civil war, 

II. During said war there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Frederick 
County, State of Virginia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, wood as above described, which at the time and 
place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of twenty-two hundred and forty dollars 
($2,240), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was presented by the decedent to the Southern Claims Com- 
mission in 1871, but it appears that he failed to take testimony and close the same 
before the claim was barred in 1879. The claim was subsequently referred to this 
court under the act of March 3, 1883, and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
Thereafter, as hereinbefore stated, the claim was referred to the court by resolution 
of the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker act. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 29, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF MARSHALL, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11788. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Va. ( v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Fauquier County. Virignia, the 
sum of three hundred dollars, for the use and destruction of their church property by 
the Union Army during the war between the States." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Va., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court September 5, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about April 7, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Blenker, took 
possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church at Marshall, Va., and 
occupied the same for quarters. That the cost to restore the building to the condition 
in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of 
$3,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of February, 
1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Va., as 
a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the 
rebellion. ■ 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 16 



242 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, on or about April, 1862, the 
military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of the Presbyterian Church at Marshall, Va., and occupied the same for mili- 
tary purposes. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the period 
it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, 
was the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test tnis 20th day of March, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ST. GEORGE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PUNGOTEAGUE, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11070. St. George Protestant Episcopal Church of Pungoteague, 

Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims on the 31st of March, 1903, by 
resolution of the United States Senate under the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

j"A BILL for the relief of Saint George's Episcopal Church of Pungoteague, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of Saint George's Episcopal Church, of Pungoteague, Virginia, five thou- 
sand dollars, the same being in full for, and the receipt of the same to be taken and 
accepted in full and final discharge of, its claim for the occupancy of and damage to the 
church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war between 
the States, and for which no payment has been made." 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. George 
A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in its petition makes the following allegations: 

That St. George Protestant Episcopal Church, of Pungoteague, Va., is an ecclesi- 
astical corporation existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, and that during the 
war of the rebellion the said corporation as such did not give any aid or comfort to the 
said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United 
States. 

That in November, 1861, the St. George Protestant Episcopal Church, of Pungo- 
teague, Accomac County, Va., which was owned by and was the property of the claim- 
ant, was occupied by troops under the command of Brig. Gen. Henry H. Lockwood, 
U. S. Army, to wit, a company of infantry under command of Major Anderson, and 
Company A, Purcell's Legion, Maryland Cavalry, under command of Captain Duvall. 

That said church was occupied by the United States troops until the close of the war, 
and that while so occupied by the military forces of the United States all the interior 
fittings of the church and a part of the walls were removed and used for the benefit of 
the United States. 

That the value of the occupation of said church building by the troops and the 
amount of damage to the building amounted to $5,000. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. George Episcopal Church, of Pungo- 
teague, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used and occupied for mili- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 243 

tary purposes the church building of the St. George Episcopal Church, of Pungoteague, 
Va. During said occupancy the interior fittings and the walls of the church were 
removed and the material therein used for the Army, the reasonable value of the occu- 
pation of the said church building and the amount of the damage thereto being the 
sum of two thousand eight hundred dollars (§2,800), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 14, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSHUA SHERWOOD, HEIR OF LEWIS A. SHERWOOD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11553. Joshua Sherwood, heir of Lewis A. Sherwood, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause is for stores and supplies alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

The claim was first referred to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the 
House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883. The case was on October 
31, 1901, dismissed by the court for nonprosecution. 

Thereafter, on April 26, 1904, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to 
the court, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill in the 
following words: 

"[S. 1703, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Joshua Sherwood and Elizabeth Gray. 

' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to Joshua Sherwood and Elizabeth Gray the sum of one 
thousand four hundred dollars for property taken from Lewis A. and Ellen Sherwood 
by the United States Army during the late war." 

The claimant appeared in this court and filed his petition, in which he makes the 
following allegations: 

I. That he is one of the heirs of Lewis A. and Ellen Sherwood, deceased; that said 
decedent was, during the late war, a resident of the State of Virginia, and did not 
give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to 
the Government of the United States. 

II. That the following property belonging to Lewis A. and Ellen Sherwood was 
taken from them by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, 
place, and command being particularly stated below: 

In Alexandria County, in the State of Virginia, on or about the day of years 

1862, 1863, and 1864, by the United States troops, to wit, Twenty-ninth New York 
Volunteers, General Blanchard and General Sickler, brigades of Garibaldi soldiers, viz: 

2 horses, at $125 $250 

2 cows, at $35 70 

300 panels post and rail fence, at $1 per panel 300 

7 tons of hay, at $30 per ton 210 

100 bushels of potatoes, at $1.50 per bushel 150 

5 hogs, 150 pounds each, at 11 cents per pound 75 

50 bushels of onions, at $1.50 per bushel 75 

75 bushels of turnips, at 50 cents per bushel 35 

50 chickens, at $6 per dozen 24 

1,000 feet lumber, at 1\ cents per foot 25 

2,000 cabbages, at 10 cents each 200 

2 acres of corn, at $30 per acre 60 

3 cords of wood, at $4 per cord 12 

Total < 1,486 

III. That a claim for said property was presented to Congress October 1, 1877, the 
items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 



244 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

IV. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-eighth and previous Con- 
gresses and was. by resolution of the Senate of the said Fifty-eighth Congress, on the 
26th day of April, 1904, referred to this court for a finding of the facts, in accordance 
with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the 
bringing of suits against the United States Government." 

The case was brought to a preliminary hearing on the question of loyalty, and on 
the 26th day of March, 1906, the claimant was found loyal. The case was brought to 
a hearing on the merits on the 7th day of February, 1907. 

George A. & William B. King appearing on behalf of the claimant and J. A. Van 
Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, F. De C. Faust, appearing for 
the defense and protection of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. The claimant's decedent, Lewis A. Sherwood, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period there was taken from claimant's decedent in Alexandria. 
County, State of Virginia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the 
petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four 
hundred dollars ($400), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The within claim was never presented to any department of the Government 

Srior to its presentation to Congress and first reference to this court under the act of 
[arch 3, 1883, and no reason is given by the claimant why such was not done, except 
that it is contended by claimant that his deceased father was in bad health after the 
second year of the war and hardly ever left home, and that his mother after the death 
of his father knew nothing regarding the filing of such claims before the Southern 
Claims Commission. 

By the Court. 
- Filed April 1, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant' Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF BAPTIST CHURCH, WATERFORD, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11669. Trustees of the Baptist Church, of Waterford, Va., i>» 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the- 
Tucker Act: 

' ' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Waterford Baptist Church, of Waterford, Loudoun County,. 

Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Treasurer of the United States be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise- 
appropriated, to the trustees of the Waterford Baptist Church, at Waterford, Loudoun 
County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full for damages done said church 
building by the Army of the United States during the late war." 

The trustees of the Baptist Church, of Waterford, Va., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court November 2, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about May, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession. 
of the church building of the Baptist Church of Waterford, Va., and used and occu- 
pied the same at various times from said date until the close of the war for hospital 
and other purposes. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and 
the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it 
was at the time the said military forces first took possession, was the sum of $1,000, 
for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of January,. 
1907. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 245 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by T. W. 
Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. The Baptist Church of Waterford, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States took possession of the church building belonging to the Baptist Church 
of Waterford, Va., in 1862, and used the same at various times for short periods for 
hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value thereof for the time of such occupa- 
tion, together with the damage done to the property in excess of the ordinary wear 
and tear, was then and there the sum of five hundred and twenty-five dollars ($525.00), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of 
the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is shown why such 
was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 28, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 
Tseal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES BAPTIST CHURCH, WILLIAMSBURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11714. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Va., v . 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL for the relief of the Baptist Church at Williamsburg, Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and required, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to 
pay to the trustees of the Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Virginia, or their suc- 
cessors in office, in trust'for the use and benefit of the Baptist Church of Williamsburg, 
Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use, occupation, and damage of the 
church building while used by the United States Army during the civil war: Pro- 
vided, That the said sum be accepted in full payment of all claims against the United 
States down to the date of the passage of this act by the trustees or any other party 
claiming for or in behalf of the said Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Virginia." 

The trustees of the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va. , appeared and filed their 
petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
6th day of May, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va., 
and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until the close of the war. 
That by reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the reason- 
able rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said 
military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,000, for which no 
payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Decem- 
ber, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



246 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va., as 
a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied for military pur- 
poses the church building belonging to the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va. The 
reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such 
occupation, was the sum of one thousand five hundred and forty dollars ($1,540), for 
which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 18, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES BEREA BAPTIST CHURCH, STAFFORD COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11659. Trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, 

Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 
* [S. 2763, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL for the relief of the trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, 
Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of 
six hundred dollars, for use of, damage, and final destruction of their church prop- 
erty by the military forces of the United States during the late war." 

The trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Va., appeared and filed 
their petition in this court February 8, 1905, in which they make the following alle- 
gations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about April, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession 
of the church building of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Va., and used 
and occupied the same for military purposes from said date at various times until 
the close of the war. That by reason of such use and occupation repairs were neces- 
sary, and it cost the sum of $1,250 to restore the building to the same condition in 
which it was when said military forces of the United States first took possession of 
the same, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 1st day of May, 1905. 
G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles 
F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, 
Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and 
used at various times and damaged the church building belonging to the Berea Bap- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 247 

tist Church, of Stafford County, Va. Such use and occupation and of damage to said 
property was then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hundred dollars ($600). 
No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, DINWIDDIE COURT- 
HOUSE, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11032. Trustees of the] Calvary Episcopal Church, of Dinwiddle 
Court House, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT. 

The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims for findings of fact in accord- 
ance with section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide 
for the bringing of suits against the United States, " to wit: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Episcopal Church at Dinwiddie Court House, Dinwiddie 

Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Episcopal Church, of Dinwiddie Court House, Dinwiddie 
County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full for damage done said church 
by the United States troops during the late war. " 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 

The claimants, A. M. Orgain, S. Y. Gilliam, and W. M. Sterne, respectfully repre- 
sent: 

I. That they are duly appointed and constituted trustees of Calvary Episcopal 
Church of Dinwiddie Court House, Va., as will appear from the annexed certificate; 
that said church was, during the late war, located, as at present, at Dinwiddie Court 
House, in the State of Virginia. 

II. That the following property, belonging to said Calvary Episcopal Church, was 
taken from it by the United States Army and used by the said army, the date, place, 
and command be'ing particularly stated below: 

In Dinwiddie County, in the State of Virginia, on or about the 1st day of April, 
1865, by the First Maine Cavalry, the church edifice, which was used as a Federal 
hospital, and its interior fittings, which were damaged and destroyed; that the use 
of said edifice and the damage done thereto amounted, at a reasonable and just figure, 
to $1,000. 

III. That a claim for said property was not presented other than by petition to 
Congress hereinafter referred to. 

IV. That the said claim has been presented to Congress, and was by resolution 
of the Senate of the said Congress referred to this court for a finding of the facts in 
accordance with section 14 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to 
provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States. " 

The case was brought to hearing on the 14th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. George A. and William B. King, appearing on behalf of the claimant, and 
Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, Mr. George M. 
Anderson, special attorney, appearing on behalf of the defense. 

The court, after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Calvary Episcopal 
Church of Dinwiddie Court House, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of and occupied the building belonging to 
the claimant for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said church 
building, together with damages incident to such occupation, beyond ordinary wear 
and tear, was the sum of five hundred and twenty dollars ($520), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 



248 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. This claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF CALVARY PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CULPEPER 

COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11664. Trustees Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of 
Culpeper County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

" [S. 2768, Fifty-eighth Congress,' second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars to the trustees of Calvary Protestant 
Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Virginia, near Mitchells Station, for use, 
occupation, and final destruction of said church by the Federal troops during the late 
war." 

The trustees of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court August 11, 1904, in which they make 
the following allegations: 

That oh or about the month of November, 1863, the military forces of the United 
States, under command of General Meade, took possession of the church building of 
Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, situated near Mitchell, Culpeper County, in 
the State of Virginia, and removed the said building, appropriating all of the mate- 
rials therein to the use of the Army. That said building at the time of its removal 
by the Federal authorities was reasonably worth the sum of $2,500. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of March, 
1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argumentsjof 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, 
of Culpeper County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the' military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the 
church building of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Va., 
in the fall of 1863, and appropriated the materials therein contained to their own use, 
which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand six hundred 
and fifty dollars ($1,650). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 249 

TRUSTEES CEDAR RUN BAPTIST CHURCH, CULPEPER COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11604. Trustees of Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper 
County, Va., v . The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 633, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Virginia- 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Virginia, the 
sum of one thousand two hundred dollars for use of and damage to church property 
by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. " 

The truste.es of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court May 28, 1904, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the winter or 1862 and 1863 tne military forces of the United States, 
under command of Generals Banks and Pope, took possession of the church building 
of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., and removed the said 
building, using the same for building winter quarters and other purposes. That said 
building was comparatively new, having been constructed a few years before its 
removal at a cost of about twelve hundred dollars ($1,200). 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of October, 
1905. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. 
Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the tollowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper 
County, Va. , as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the 
war oL the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the 
Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., and destroyed the same, and 
used the material thereof, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of nine 
hundred dollars ($900), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 30, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES CHRISTIAN CHURCH, FREDERICKSBURG, VA. 

t 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11607. Trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg 

Va., v. The United States.] ' 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

" [S. 637, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 



250 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of 
four thousand dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared and filed 
their petition in the court August 2, 1902, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of 
the said Christian Church and used and occupied the same for military purposes for 
more than two years. That said building was first used as a hospital by General 
Burnside's army for several months in 1862, and again used for a similar purpose 
by General Grant's army for a period of about two years from 1864 until the close of 
the war. 

That by reason of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary, and 
the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of such occupancy, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it 
was at the time said occupation commenced, was the sum of four thousand dollars 
($4,000), for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 25th day of October, 
1904. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, apeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., 
as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church at 
Fredericksburg, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for hospital pur- 
poses for a period of about two years. The reasonable rental value of said building 
during such occupancy beyond the reasonable wear thereof was the sum of two thou- 
sand one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($2,125). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 31, 1904. 
A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, _ 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF DOWNING METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, 

OAK HALL, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12512. Trustees of Downing Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Oak Hall, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

■ This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the 
United States Senate referred to the cc^irt a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 4023, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of- the trustees of the Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, 

Accomac County, Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of the Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, 
Accomac County, Virginia, the sum of five hundred dollars, in full compensation for 
the use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late 
civil war." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 251 

The claimants appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed their petition, in 
which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late civil war, and in the fall of 1861, the military forces of the 
United States under command of Gen. Henry A. Lockwood took possession of the 
church building of the Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, 
Accomac County, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes for 
several weeks. That during said occupation the said military forces destroyed the 
plastering, ceiling, pews, windows, shutters, and otherwise injured the said building. 
That the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the 
said military forces took possession was the sum of $500, for which no payment has 
been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of Janu- 
ary, 1908. 

C. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, Va., as an organi- 
zation, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil 
war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- 
pied the same, but for what purpose does not appear, and damaged the same. The 
reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred and thirty-five 
dollars ($235.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of 
any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse 
the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 3, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ■ 

TRUSTEES OF EBENEZER METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, 
OF GARRISONVILLE, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11779. Trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Garrisonville, Va., v. The United States. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Vir- 
ginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their 
church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the 
following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1862, 
the military forces of the United States, under command of General Burnside, took 
possession of the church building of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 



252 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Garrison ville, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the 
spring of 1863. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it 
was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum 
of $1,500. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of Decem- 
ber, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT: 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Garrisonville, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United 
States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and 
occupied the church building belonging to the Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Garrisonville, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together 
with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 2, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF FAIRFAX LODGE, NO. 43, A. F. AND A. M., OF CULPEPER, VA. 

\ 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11783. Trustees, Fairfax Lodge No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of 
Culpeper, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of Fairfax Lodge, Numbered Forty-three, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, 

of Culpeper, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to Fairfax Lodge, Numbered Forty-three, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, of Cul- 
peper, Virginia, the sum of one thousand one hundred and sixty-nine dollars, for use of 
and damage to lodge building by the military forces of the United States during the late 
civil war. ' ' 

The trustees of Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court March 22, 1906, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
summer of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of the lodge building of Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, 
Va., and used and occupied the same at various times for military purposes until the 
close of the war. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the 
cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession of the same was the sum of $1,169, for which no payment has been 
made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 253 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT, 

I. It appears from the evidence that Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Cul- 
peper, Va., as such, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the 
war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the lodge building of Fairfax 
Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, Va., and used and occupied the said 
building for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said lodge building 
during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took pos- 
session, was the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. . 

Test this 29th day of May, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF FREDERICKSBURG BAPTIST CHURCH, FREDERICKS- 
BURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11768. Trustees of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Fred- 
ericksburg, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Fredericksburg Baptist Church,of Fredericksburg, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the 
sum of four thousand dollars, for the use of and damage to their church property by 
the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." 

The trustees of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court May 18, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
month of November, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper author- 
ity, took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church of Fredericksburg, 
Va., and occupied and damaged the same; that the reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the building to the same condition in which it was when the said military forces of the 
United States first took possession of the same, was the sum of $4,000. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 
1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 
I 

I. 

It appears from the evidence that the Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Freder- 
icksburg, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war of the rebellion. 



254 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. 

During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Bap- 
tist Church, of Fredericksburg, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for 
military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it 
was occupied by the military forces, including the repairs necessary to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was when said troops first took possession of the 
same, was the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH, OF FAUQUIER COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11780. Trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, 

Virginia, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CAST:. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum 
of one thousand dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Va., appeared and filed 
their petition in this court March 13 , 1906 , in which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States at different times during the years 1862 and 1863, under command 
of Generals Meade, Hatch, and Gregg, took possession of and used and damaged the 
church building belonging to the Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Va. 
That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took pos- 
session of the same was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 26th day of March, 
1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. 
Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, 
Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for 
the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and 
occupied, for military purposes, the church building belonging to the Grove Baptist 
Church, of Fauquier County, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, 
together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of six hundred 
dollars ($600), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 2, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of May, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 255 

TRUSTEES OF HARTWOOD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF STAFFORD 

COUNTY, VA. 

[ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11668. Trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford 
County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United 
States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker 
Act: 

["S. 2772, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford 
County, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 
sum of one thousand two hundred dollars for use of and damage to their church prop- 
erty by the military forces of the United States during the late war." 

The trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court May 18, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the fall and winter of 1862-63, the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Hartwood Presbyterian 
Church, of Stafford County, Va., and occupied the same for military purposes during 
said period and at various times thereafter until the close of the war. That by reason 
of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary and the cost to restore the 
building to the same condition in which it was at the time the military forces of the 
United States took possession of the same was the sum of §1,200. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 
1906, G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford 
County, Va., was loyal, as a church, to the Government of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military pur- 
poses, the church building belonging to the Hartwood Presbyterian Church of Stafford 
County, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs 
incident to such occupation, was the sum of eight hundred dollars ($800), for which no 
payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 19, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



256 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF KENT STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WINCHES- 
TER, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12494. Trustees of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, Win- 
chester, Va., r. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CA8E. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United 
States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 5894, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the. Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
■ assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester. Virginia, the sum 
of five thousand dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court January 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in 
which it is substantially averred: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Banks, took 
possession of the church building of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, 
V a., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. That thereafter, various 
other commands of the United States Army used and occupied the said building at 
intervals until September 19. 1864. when the said army, under command of General 
Sheridan, took possession of said building and used the same for hospital purposes 
until May. 1865. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was 
at the time the said military "forces took possession, was the sum of $5,000, for which 
no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. 

'.. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. V - j. his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 

protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, Va., as an organization, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, under the commands 
of Generals Ranks and Sheridan, took possession of the church building described in 
the petition and used and occupied the same at various times for hospital purposes 
from March, 1862. to May, 1865. Such use and occupation, together with the reason- 
able damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there worth the sum 
of two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($2,750), no part of which appears to 
have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court, under the provisions 
of the act of March 3, 1887, hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. 

By the Couht. 
Filed April 29, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 257 

TRUSTEES OF LIBERTY CHURCH, OF DRANESVILLE. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11787. Trustees of Liberty Church, of Dranesville, Va., v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act :j 

[ 'S. 6397, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Liberty Church, Dranesville, Virginia. 

• 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Un Ued States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Liberty Church, at Dranesville, Fairfax 
County, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the 
sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for the use, occupation, and destruction of 
their church property by the Union Army during the war between the States." 

The trustees of Liberty Church, of Dranesville. Va., appeared and filed then- 
petition in this court May 18, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Jan- 
uary 1, 1863. the military forces of the United States under command of Major Taggart, 
took possession of the church building of Liberty Church, at Dranesville. Va., and 
used and occupied the same for military purposes. That by reason of such use and 
occupation repairs were necessary and the cost to restore the building to the condition 
in which it was at the time the said military forces of the United States first took 
possession of the same was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 
1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by Charles F. Kincheloe. esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

£55 FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Liberty Church, of Dranesville. Va.. as a 
church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for roilitary 
purposes, the church building belonging to the Liberty Church, of Dranesville, Va. 
The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to 
such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700 1, for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 19. 1906. 
A true copv. 

Test this 23d day of February. 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF LOUDOUX STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. OF WIN- 
CHESTER. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12472. Trustees of Loudoun Street Presbyterian Chuich. nf 
Winchester, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13. 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3. 1SS7. known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A^BILL Forthe relief of th trustees of Loudoun Street Pres'. yteriar: Church, of Winchest°r.Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Sfrtat<- and House of Represen tativt .<? of the Un ited Staffs of America 
in Conaress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and heis hereby, author- 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 17 



258 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- 
ated, to the trustees of Loudoun Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, Vir- 
ginia, the sum of seven thousand dollars, for use of and damage to their church prop- 
erty by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Loudoun Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition irrthis court August 28, 1906, in which they make the follow- 
ing allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Sep- 
tember 20, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of Maj. 
Gen. P. H. Sheridan, took possession of the church building of Loudoun Street Pres- 
byterian Church, of Winchester, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital 
and other purposes until the fall of 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to 
restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession, was the sum of $7,000 for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of Janu- 
ary, 1906. 

G. W T . Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Loudoun Street Presbyterian Church, of 
Winchester, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said war the property described in the petition was taken possession of 
by the United States troops, the furniture removed, and the church building occu- 
pied as a hospital for a period of about two years. 

The reasonable rental value of said building for such period, together with the 
damage to same in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of twenty-six hun- 
dred dollars ($2,600), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of 
the United States Senate, hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why such was 
not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 21, 1907. . 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF LUTHERAN CHURCH OF TOMS BROOK, VA., AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12511. Trustees of Lutheran Church of Toms Brook, Va., and 
trustees of Reformed Church of Toms Brook Va., successors to the Union Church, of Toms Brook, 
Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On February 1, 1906, Senate bill 4025 was introduced in the Fifty-ninth Congress, 
which said bill reads as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Union Church, of Toms Brook, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 
otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Union Church, of Toms Brook, Virginia, 
the sum of eight hundred dollars, in full compensation for the use and occupation of 
and damage to real estate of said church by United States military forces during the 
late civil war." 

Said bill,, with accompanying papers, was referred to this court by resolution of the 
United States Senate on June 13, 1906, for findings of fact under the terms of section 
14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 259 

. The case was brought to a hearing upon lovaltv and merits on the 9th day of January, 
1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. 
Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: 

That petitioners John H. Bauserman and Abraham Keller are the trustees of the 
Reformed Church, of Toms Brook, Va. ; that petitioners Noah F. Snarr and B. F. 
Borden, jr., are the trustees of the Lutheran Church, of Toms Brook, Va. 

That previous to and during the late civil war said two churches were the owner in 
common of a certain house of worship, known as and called the " Union Church," of 
Toms Brook, Va. ; that said building was a substantial wooden structure, well finished 
and furnished, and reasonably worth in the spring of 1862 not less than $1,000; that in 
the spring of 1862 the United States military forces, under Gen. N. P. Banks, took pos- 
session of said building and used and occupied the same for military purposes; that 
during said use of said building the same was greatly damaged, the building when 
vacated being practically nothing but walls and roof; that the reasonable rental value 
of said premises during said period of occupation, with the damages incident to such 
occupation, amount to the sum of $800. 

That petitioners as trustees as aforesaid for said Reformed Church, of Toms Brook, 
Va., and for said Lutheran Church, of Toms Brook, Va., are the owners of this claim. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. Throughout the late civil war the Lutheran Church, of Toms Brook, Va., and the 
Reformed Church, of Toms Brook, Va., remained, as organizations, loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. 

II. During the civil war the Lutheran Church, of Toms Brook, Va. , and the Reformed 
Church, of Toms Brook, Va. , were the owners in common of a certain house of worship 
used by said two churches, which building was called the "Union Church," of Toms 
Brook. During said war said building was used and occupied by the United States 
military forces for military purposes and was incidentally greatly damaged. The 
reasonable rental value of said premises during the period of said occupation, and for 
damage to the pulpit, pews, and building was the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars 
($250), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. This claim was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to 
its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid, and no reason is 
given why such was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

• Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF MACEDONIA METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, STAF- 
FORD COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12420. Trustees of Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
Stafford County, Virginia, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court, June 13, 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, 

Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Virginia, 
the sum of one thousand dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by 
the military forces of the United States during the late civil war.^- 



260 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The trustees of Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court October 18, 1906, in which they make 
the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall and 
winter of 1862, the military forces of the United States, consisting of the Seventeenth 
Pennsylvania Cavalry, took possession of the church building of Macedonia Methodist 
Church, of Stafford County, Va., and used and occupied the same for military pur- 
poses until the following spring. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were neces- 
sary and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time 
the said military forces took possession was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, of Stafford County", Va. , as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church property belonging to the Macedonia Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, of Stafford County, Va., and used and occupied the same from the fall 
or winter of 1862 until the following spring for military purposes. The reasonable 
value of said use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of the 
ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of three hundred and ten dollars 
($310), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never referred to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of March 3, 
1887, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason was given why the same was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11 , 1907. 
A true copy. 

Attest this 12th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

- TRUSTEES OF MARKET STREET M. E. CHURCH, WINCHESTER, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11773. Trustees of Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of Winchester, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, of Winchester, 

'..-=r'=r ps'-rSr-s'i- -v-v. -r -v "r Virginia. 

11 Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, of Winchester, Virginia, 
the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church 
property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, of Winchester, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court February 26, 1906, in which they make 
the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Sep- 
tember 19, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of Gen. 
P. H. Sheridan, took possession of the church building of the Market Street Methodist 
Episcopal Church, of Winchester, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital 
purposes until on or about the last of May, 1865. That by reason of such occupancy 
repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the 
period it was'so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 261 

condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of $3,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of March. 
1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
G. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of Winchester, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied for military pur- 
poses the church building belonging to the Market Street Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of Winchester, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the 
repairs incident to such use and occupation, was the sum of one thousand seven hun- 
dred and forty dollars ($1,740), for which no payment appears to have been made. • 

By the Court. 
Filed April 9, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, DRUMMONDTOWN, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11023. Trustees, Methodist Episcopal Church, of Drummond- 
town, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military 
forces of the United States during war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 
3d day of March, 1903, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the 
following words: 

"[S. 1525, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.J 

A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Drummondtown Methodist Episcopal Church, at Drum- 

mondtown, Virginia. ss 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized to pay to the trustees of the Drummondtown Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
Accomac County, Virginia, the sum of nine hundred dollars for the occupancy of and 
damage to their house of worship by the Army of the United States during the late 
war between the States." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court October 12, 1904, and filed 
their petition in which it is substantially averred — 

That the Methodist Episcopal Church of Drummondtown, Va., was in good condi- 
tion and repair, and was used as a regular place of worship up till about July 1, 1863; 
that said church was loyal to the Government of the United States, and in no way 
gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion; July 1, 1863, while United States forces were encamped in 
the vicinity of said church, they took complete possession of said church and estab- 
lished their headquarters therein, and also used the church to store supplies; the seats 
were removed therefrom, destroyed, and broken, the altar, pulpit, and other fittings, 
ornaments, and arrangements, were removed by United States forces, all of which com- 

? lately prevented the holding in any manner of religious service therein; that the 
Ihited States forces occupied said church until 1865; during said period they greatly 
damaged the windows, doors, and blinds; the floors were torn up, the walls torn out, 
and the whole interior of said church ruined ; all of which damaged said church to the 
amount of $900, which sum was expended by the church in repairing, rebuilding, and 
restoring said church to a proper condition for religious worship. 



262 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. 

R. W. Haynes appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Camp- 
bell, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. p*. g| 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument^of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church of Drummondtown, Va., as an organization 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States took possession of 
said church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same at 
various times from July 1, 1863, until the year 1865. Such use and occupation, together 
with the reasonable damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and 
there worth the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, 
hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 29, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of December, A. D. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, DEEP 

CREEK, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12425. Trustees Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Deep 
Creek, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and injury to a church building by the military forces of 
the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 2590, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

ApJILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Deep Creek, 
H B Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Deep Creek, 
Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use and destruction of church prop- 
erty by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 25th day of April, 1907, and filed their 
petition, in which it is substantially averred: 

That during the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, under com- 
mand of Gen. Egbert L. Viele, took possession of the church building belonging to 
the Methodist Episcopal Church South, situate near Deepcreek, Norfolk County, Va., 
and removed the said building and appropriated the material to the use of the United 
States Army in building barracks and used the same until the close of the war; that 
said building, at the time of its removal, including furniture and fixtures, which were 
also taken, was reasonably worth the sum of $3,000, no part of which has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of February, 
1908. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 263 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Deepcreek, Va., as an organization, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
for the use of the Army, took possession of the said church building and tore down 
the same and used the material thereof in the erection of barracks. The reasonable 
value of said building at the time and place of taking was the sum of nine hundred 
dollars ($900.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of 
the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having 
resorted to any established legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, MARSHALL, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11674. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Marshall, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 2778, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Marshall, Virginia . 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House af Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Marshall, Virginia, five hundred dollars for the use, occupation, and damage to the 
church building by the United States troops during the war of eighteen hundred and 
sixty-one to eighteen hundred and sixty-five." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Marshall, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court June 29, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 
7th day of April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Marshall, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. Said use and 
occupation and the damage incident thereto was reasonably worth the sum of $800, 
for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of January, 
1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 
I. 

It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mar- 
shall, Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 



264 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Marshall, Virginia, and used, occupied, and 
damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the 
time it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the 
condition in which it was at the time said military forces took possession of the same, 
was the sum of six hundred/ dollars (§600.00), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, WILLIAMS- 
BURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12470. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Williamsburg, Va., v . The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the 
Tucker Act: 

"[S. 6180, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

•'A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Williamsburg, 

Virginia. 

"Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Williamsburg, Virginia, 
the sum of two thousand two hundred dollars, for use and destruction of their church 
property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Williamsburg, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which-they 
make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about May 6, 
1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General McClellan, 
took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Williamsburg, Va., and used the same for hospital purposes. That various other 
commands of the said Army continued to use and occupy said building for military 
purposes from and after said date until the summer of 1865. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,200, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of February, 
1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Williamsburg, Va., as a church, was 
loyal to' the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
occupied said church building and used the same for hospital purposes for three 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 265 

years, and a reasonable rental value of said building, together with damages in excess 
of the ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300.00). 

III. This claim was never presented to any Department of the Government prior 
to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the 
act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is shown why the same 
was not done. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES OF MOUNT HOREB METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, 
OF FAUQUIER COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11672. Trustees of Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Fauquier County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 2776, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Fauquier 

County, Virginia. 

"Z-J 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Fauquier County, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
wise appropriated, the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars for the use, damage, 
and partial destruction of their church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the war between the States." 

The trustees of Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church South, oi Fauquier 
County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 3, ,1904, in 
which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of 
Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church South, situated near Bristersburg, Fau- 
quier County, Va., in the fall of 1862, and occupied the same for quarters; that by 
reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and it cost to restore the building 
to the condition in which it was when said occupation commenced the sum of $150, 
for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of Fauquier County, State of Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of and 
used the church building of Mount Horeb Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 



266 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Fauquier County, State of Virginia. By reason of such occupation repairslwere 
necessary to restore the church building to the condition in which it was when said 
occupation commenced. The reasonable value of said repairs was the sum of one 
hundred and fifty dollars ($150), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 22, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES OF MOUNT ZION CHURCH OF UNITED BRETHREN, FRED- 
ERICK COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11705. Trustees of Mount Zion Church of 
United Brethren, of Frederick County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 27, 1904, Senate bill No. 3748, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to 
this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under 
the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known 
as the Tucker Act, which bill reads as follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of Mount Zion Church of United Brethren, of Frederick County, 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Mount Zion 
Church of United Brethren, of Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of nine hun- 
dred dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of prop- 
erty by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 13th day of 
November, 1905. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

Claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they are the trustees of the Mount Zion Church of United Brethren, of 
Frederick County, Va. ; that said church was an organization existing in said 
county and State prior to and during the late civil war, and has continued to 
so exist until the present time ; that during said war said church was the owner 
of certain real estate in said county and State, upon which was situated a sub- 
stantial house of worship, used and occupied by said church, said building being 
in dimensions about 33 by 43 feet, in good repair and condition ; that during 
said war, to wit, in the fall of 1864, the United States military forces took pos- 
session of said building and occupied the same for a period of at least one 
month, and that while so occupying said building said forces greatly damaged 
the same; that to repair said damage actually cost said church more than the 
sum of $900. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the Mount Zion Church 
of United Brethren, of Frederick County, State of Virginia, and used and oc- 
cupied the same for military purposes. During such use and occupancy the 
military forces greatly damaged the said church building. The reasonable 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 267 

rental value of the church building so occupied, and the damage thereto being 
the sum of eight hundred dollars ($800), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

. It appears from the evidence that the Mount Zion Church of United Brethren, 
of Frederick County, State of Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] <[ohn Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES OF MOUNT ZION OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST CHURCH, NEAR 

ALDIE, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11790. Trustees of Mount Zion Old School 
Baptist Church, near Aldie, Loudoun County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 28th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1905, the United States Senate referred to the court the following bill : 

"[S. 6400, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Mount Zion Old School Baptist Church, near 
Aldie, Loudoun County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and 
he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of Mount Zion Old 
School Baptist Church, near Aldie, Loudoun County, Virginia, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of five hundred 
dollars, for use, damage, and partial destruction of their church property by 
the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." 

The claimants appeared in this court December 6, 1905, and filed their peti- 
tion, in which it is substantially averred— 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- 
ing of Mount Zion Old School Baptist Church, of Aldie, Loudoun County, Va., 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes at various times during 
the years 1862 and 1863 ; that by reason of such occupancy repairs were 
necessary, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was 
at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of $500, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
March, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Mount Zion Old School Baptist Church, of Aldie, Va., as a church 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property de- 



268 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

scribed in the petition and used the same as a barracks and damaged the 
building. The reasonable rental value thereof, together with the damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was at the time and place the sum of two 
hundred and seventy-five dollars ($275.00), no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never referred to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the 
provisions of the Tucker Act as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given 
therefor. 

By the Couet. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES OF MUHLENBERG EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, 
OF HARRISONBURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11693. Trustees of the Muhlenberg Evangel- 
ical Lutheran Church, of Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, State of Virginia.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims in April, 1904, by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. 

" [S. 3472, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL for the relief of the Muhlenberg Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Harrisonburg, 
Rockingham County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Muhlenberg 
Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, Virginia, 
the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full compensation for use, 
occupation, and destruction of property taken for the use of and used by the 
Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The trustees of said church appeared and filed their petition in this court 
December 17, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : 

Your petitioners, W. M. Bucher, A. H. Snyder, A. Feuchtenberger, and M. L. 
Rutherford, respectfully represent that they are citizens of the United States 
and residents of the county of Rockingham, State of Virginia ; that they are the 
duly elected and acting trustees of the Muhlenberg Evangelical Lutheran Church, 
of Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, State of Virginia ; that during the civil 
war said church was in existence and was the owner of a certain church build- 
ing in said county and State; that said church was a frame structure about 
35 by 50 feet, 2 stories in height; that the main auditorium had a seating 
capacity of about 400 people; that the building was a substantial building, 
painted and frescoed and carpeted ; that at various times during said war and 
beginning in 1862 the said church was used by the United States military forces 
as a hospital and as a place for storing supplies; that while so used by the 
United States military forces said building was greatly damaged to the amount 
of $1,500. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 269 

of and used for hospital and other purposes the church building belonging to the 
Muhlenberg Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Harrisonburg, Rockingham 
County, Va., and damaged the same. Such use and occupation during various 
times during the said war, beginning in 1862, including damages incident thereto, 
were reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and twenty-five dollars ($925). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

II. It appears from the evidence that the Muhlenberg Evangelical Lutheran 
Church, of Harrisonburg, Rockingham County, Va., was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 16, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Cleric. 

TRUSTEES OF OAK GROVE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, NOR- 
FOLK COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11610. Trustees of Oak Grove Methodist 
Episcopal Church, of Norfolk County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States -Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 642, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, of 

Norfolk County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Oak Grove Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, of Norfolk County, Virginia, the sum of three thousand 
and eighty dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, of Norfolk County, 
Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court August 11, 1904, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of the church building and grounds of the said 
Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, and used and occupied the same for 
military purposes until April, 1865. That during said occupancy the building 
was greatly damaged and a grove of trees, containing about one acre and sur- 
rounding the church building, was cut down and appropriated to the use of the 
army. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said 
occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the premises to the condi- 
tion in which they were when said occupation commenced, was the sum of 
$3,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of 
February, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the 
Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

Tbe court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal 
Church, of Norfolk County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of 
rhe United States during the war of the rebellion. 



270 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used and occupied 
the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Oak Grove, Norfolk 
County, Va., for military purposes. By reason of such use and occupation 
repairs were necessary. The soldiers also cut timber from the premises. The 
reasonable rental value of said church building during the period it was occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in 
which it was when said troops first took possession, and the timber cut from the 
premises, was the sum of one thousand two hundred and ninety dollars 
($1,290), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as 
aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 20, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims 



TRUSTEES OAK GROVE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, REAMS 

STATION, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11691. Trustees of Oak Grove Methodist 
Episcopal Church, of Reams Station, Va., ■;;. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 3402, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Oak Grove Methodist Church, at Reams Station, in Dinwiddie 

I County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of Oak 
Grove Methodist Church, in Dinwiddie County, Virginia, the sum cf one 
thousand dollars, to compensate said church for damages done to said church 
by the Federal troops in occupying said church as a hospital." 

The trustees of Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, of Reams Station, 
Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 19, 1904, in which 
they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, under command of Gen. W. S. Hancock, took 
possession of the church building of the said Methodist Episcopal Church and 
used, occupied, and damaged the said building; that the cost to restore the 
said building to the same condition in which it was before such use, occupation, 
and damage was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of 
March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 271 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Oak Grove Methodist Church, at 
Reams Station, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, August, 1S64, the 
military forces of the United States, under proper authority, took possession of 
the church building of Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, at Reams 
Station, Va., and used the same for hospital purposes. By reason of such 
occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said 
building during said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was when said occupation began, was the 
sum of eight hundred dollars ($800). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF OPEQUON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, KERNSTOWN, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11608. Trustees of Opequon Presbyterian 
Church, of Kernstown, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7, 
known as the Tucker Act. 

" [S. 640, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Opequon Presbyterian Church, of Kerns- 
town, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Opequon Presby- 
terian Church, of Kernstown, Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for 
use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of Opequon Presbyterian Church, of Kernstown, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in tbis court August 11, 1904, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, under command of General Sheridan and others, 
took possession of the church building of said church, and used and occupied 
the same for hospital and other purposes during the years from 1862 to 1864. 

That by reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the 
reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the same to the condition in which it 
was when said occupation began, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
February, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



272 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Opequon Presbyterian Church, of 
Kernstown, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States 
during the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of 
the Opequon Presbyterian Church, of Kernstown, Va., and used and occupied the 
same for hospital purposes during the years 1862 to 1864. By reason of such 
occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable value of said building 
during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the same to the condition it was when said occupation began, was the sum of 
seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, LOVETTSVILLE, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11703. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church, of 
Lovettsville, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 22, 1904, Senate bill No. 3745, Fifty-eighth Congress, was intro- 
duced in the United States Senate, said bill reading as follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church of Lovettsville, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Presbyterian 
Church of Lovettsville, Virginia, the sum of one thousand eight hundred dol- 
lars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of property by the 
Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill was referred to this court on April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, for findings of fact under the provisions of section 14 of 
the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalts" - and merits on the 22d day of 
January, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants, in their petition, make the following allegations : 

That they are citizens of the county of Loudoun, State of Virginia, and are 
the duly elected, qualified, and acting trustees of the Presbyterian Church, of 
Lovettsville, Va. ; that during the late civil war said church was the owner of 
certain land at Lovettsville, Va., on which was situated a substantially con- 
structed brick church building, reasonably worth at that time not less than 
$3,500; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper 
authority, took possession of said building and used and occupied the same for 
military purposes for from two to three months in 1S65, said troops being under 
command of Gen. Thomas C. Devin ; that the reasonable rental value of said 
premises, together with the damages incident to said use and occupation, 
amounted to $1,800. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 273 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church, of Lovettsville, Va., as a church, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States took possession 
of the premises described in the petition and used the same for hospital pur- 
poses for a period of about three months. A reasonable rental therefor, in- 
cluding injury caused thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was the 
sum of four hundred and twenty-five dollars ($425), no part of which appears 
to have been paid. 

III. Said church presented a claim to the Quartermaster-General in 1866, but 
by him disallowed. Thereafter the claim was referred to the court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 28, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, STRASBURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11683. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of 
Strasburg, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 6, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate : 

"A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church of Strasburg, Shenandoah County, 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Presbyterian 
Church of Strasburg, Sbenandoah County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand 
five hundred dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction 
of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

Said bill, with accompanying papers, was referred to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate on April 27, 1904, for findings of fact under the pro- 
vifions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as 
the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of 
March, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Shenandoah, State of Virginia ; that they are the duly elected and acting trus- 
tees of the Presbyterian Church of Strasburg, Va. ; that during the late civil 
war said church was the owner of certain land in Strasburg, Shenandoah 
County, Va., on which was situated a certain substantial brick building, used 
and occupied by said church as a bouse of worship ; that during said war United 
States military forces, under Gen. N. P. Banks, took possession of said building, 
and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes; that as the result of 
said use and occupation said building was greatlv damaged, to wit, in the sum 
of $1,500. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 18 



274 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Strasburg, 
Va., was loyal to the Government of the United States, as a church, during the 
•war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for 
military purposes, the church building belonging to the Presbyterian Church 
of Strasburg, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with 
the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred and 
thirty dollars ($730), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any Department 
or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference 
to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 19, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of April, 1906. 
Iseal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF PROVIDENCE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, NEAR 

SUFFOLK, VA. 

£ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13054. Trustees of the Providence Methodist 
Episcopal Church, of near Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

In the above-entitled claim for use and occupation of and damage to real 
estate belonging to the trustees of the Providence Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of near Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., by the military forces of the United 
States during the late civil war, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-ninth Con- 
gress for the relief of the claimant, being Senate bill No. 73S6. Said bill reads 
as follows : 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
states of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
1>e, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Providence Methodist 
Episcopal Church, near Suffolk, Nansemond County, Virginia, two thousand 
"five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church building by the 
military forces of the United States during the late war between the States." 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on the 2d day 
of March, A. D. 1907, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of 
December, A. D. 1907. 

C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
<Jeneral, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That during the late civil war the Providence Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of near Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., was loyal to the Government of the 
United States, and was the owner of certain real estate located in said locality ; 
that during the war there was situated upon said land a substantial frame 
church about 36 by 42 feet; that the value of the said church building during 
the civil war was reasonably the sum of $2,000 ; that during the said war, the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said 
'Church building and occupied the same as quarters for soldiers and other pur- 
poses. That said claim is made as follows : 

Damage to church building $1, 000 

Hental of church for twenty-two months 400 

Total 1, 400 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 275 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Providence Methodist Episcopal 
Church, near Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., as an organization was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of and used said church building for quarters. The 
reasonable rental value of said building, together with damages in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of eight hundred and ninety dollars 
($890). 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by 
resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why 
the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 6, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF ST. GEORGE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, FREDERICKS- 
BURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11770. Trustees of Saint George's Episcopal 
Church, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint George's Episcopal Church, of Fred- 
ericksburg, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of Saint 
George's Episcopal Church, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two thousand five hundred 
dollars, for damage to their church property during the war between the 
States." 

The trustees of St. George's Episcopal Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., ap- 
peared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That at various times during the late civil war the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of St. 
George's Episcopal Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., and used the same for hos- 
pital purposes. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and 
the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the 
said military forces first took possession of the same was the sum of $2,500, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of 
December, 1905. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



276 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that St. George's Episcopal Church, of Fred- 
ericksburg, Va., as a church, did not give any aid to the confederacy during the 
war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession 
of and occupied the church building belonging to the St. George's Episcopal 
Church, of Fredericksburg, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, 
together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of nine 
hundred dollars ($900), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 2, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF ST. MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, FREDERICKSBURG, 

VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11774. Trustees of St. Mary's Catholic Church, of 
Fredericksburg, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint Mary's Catholic Church, of Fredericks- 
burg, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint Mary's Catholic 
Church, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use 
of and damage to said church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of St. Mary's Catholic Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court April 28, 1906, in which they make the fol- 
lowing allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
December, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of 
General Burnside, took possession of the church building of St. Mary's Catholic 
Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., and used and* occupied the same for hospital 
purposes. That thereafter, and during the summer of 1864, the said building 
was used and occupied for a similar purpose by the military forces of the 
United States under command of General Grant. 

That by reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were rendered necessary, 
and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time 
the said military forces first took possession of the same was the sum of $3,000, 
for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of 
February, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- • 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The St. Mary's Catholic Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., as a church, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 277 

II. During the said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church property belonging to the St. Mary's 
Catholic Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., used and occupied the same a short 
time on two different occasions for hospital purposes and damaged the same. 
The reasonable value of said use and occupation, together with the damages 
thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of 
five hundred dollars ($500), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under 
the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the 
same was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF SALEM BAPTIST CHURCH, CLARKE COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11704. Trustees of Salem Baptist Church of 
Clarke County, Va., v. The United States. 1 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On January 22, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States 
Senate : 

"A BILL For the relief of Salem Baptist Church, of Clarke County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of six hundred dollars 
be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, for the benefit of the trustees of the Salem Baptist 
Church, of Clarke County, Virginia, to reimburse the said church for damages 
sustained by it during the war between the States, in eighteen hundred and 
sixty-four, from the troops of the United States Army." 

Said bill, with accompanying papers, was referred to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate on April 27, 1904, for findings of fact under the 
provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known 
as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of 
February, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Clarke, State of Virginia; that he is the duly elected, qualified, and acting 
trustee of the Salem Baptist Church, of Clarke County, Va. ; that during the late 
civil war said church was the owner of certain land in said county and State, 
upon which was situated a substantial stone church building, used and occupied 
by said Salem Baptist Church as a house of worship; that during said war, 
to wit, about the fall of 1864, the United States military forces, while camped 
near said building, removed therefrom materials which were used in the con- 
struction of winter quarters and in and about their camps, to the great damage 
of said building, to wit, in the sum of $600. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that during the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion the Salem Baptist Church, of Clarke County, Va., as a church, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
belonging to the Salem Baptist Church, and used the material therefrom for 
building winter quarters. The reasonable value of the repairs-made necessary 



278 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

by such damage was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), for which no pay- 
ment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
until its presentation to Congress and reference to this court, and no evidence 
has been adduced on the subject of delays and laches. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES SHILOH (OLD SITE) BAPTIST CHURCH, FREDERICKS- 
BURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11781. Trustees of Shiloh (old site) Baptist 
Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 5925, Fifty -eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Shiloh (old site) Baptist Church, of Fred- 
ericksburg, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Shiloh (old site) 
Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars 
for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the 
United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Shiloh (old site) Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court May 5, 1905, in which tbey make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of Shiloh (old site) Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., and used 
and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes. That the cost to restore 
the building to the condition in which it was at the time the military forces of 
the United States first took possession of the same was the sum of $3,000, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
October, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Shiloh Baptist Church, of Fred- 
ericksburg, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States 
during the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of, occupied, and dam- 
aged^ the church building belonging to the Shiloh Baptist Church, of Fredricks- 
burg, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the 
repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of one thousand five hundred 
dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 30, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 279 

TRUSTEES OF ST. PAUL'S FREE CHURCH, OF ROUTTS HILLS, VA. 

[Court of Claims., Congressional, No. 11784. Trustees of St. Paul's Free Church, of 
Routts Hills, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 5928, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of St. Paul's Free Church, of the Fauquier County 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United' 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint Paul's Free- 
Church, of Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for 
use and occupation of and damage to their church property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of St. Paul's Free Church, of Routts Hills, Fauquier County,. 
Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 14, 1906, in which they 
make the following allegations: 

That during the winter of 1862-63 the military forces of the United States, 
under command of General French, used and damaged the church building 
belonging to St. Paul's Free Church, of Routts Hill, Fauquier County, Va. ; 
that the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said 
occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of 
October, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Paul's Free Church, of Routts 
Hill, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the St. Paul's Free 
Church, of Routts Hill, Va., and used and occupied the same for military pur- 
poses. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the time 
it was so occupied, including the damages to the same, other than ordinary 
wear and tear, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), for which no pay- 
ment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

» By the Cotjbt.. 

Filed October 29, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims* 



280 ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE ALFRED STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, ALEXAN- 
DRIA, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11796. Trustees of Alfred Street Baptist 
Church, of Alexandria, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 8, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the Alfred Street Baptist Church (colored), of Alexandria, 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Alfred Street Baptist 
Church (colored), of Alexander, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for 
use and occupation of and damage to said church building by United States 
troops during the civil war." 

The trustees of Alfred Street Baptist Church, of Alexandria, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court December 12, 1905, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or 
about the summer of 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of Alfred Street Baptist 
Church (colored), of Alexandria, Va., and used and occupied the same for hos- 
pital and other purposes for about two years. That by reason of such use and 
occupation repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary 
to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said 
military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of 
March, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Alfred Street Baptist Church, of 
Alexandria, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States by proper authority took possession of and occupied, for 
military purposes, the church building belonging to the Alfred Street Baptist 
Church, of Alexandria, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, to- 
gether with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of nine hun- 
dred dollars ($900), for, which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any department 
or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference 
to this court as aforesaid. , 

By the Court. 
Filed March 26, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 281 

TRUSTEES OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH OF CULPEPER, VA. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11663. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Cul- 
peper, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the Culpeper Baptist Church, at Culpeper, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Seriate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise .appropriated, to pay to the trustees of the Culpeper Baptist 
Church, at Culpeper, Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for the use 
and occupation and damage done said church building by the United States 
troops during the late war." 

The trustees of the Baptist Church of Culpeper, Va., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court April 12, 1905, in which they make the following allega- 
tions : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the month of July, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church of Cul- 
peper, Va., and used and occupied the same as a hospital and for barracks at 
various times from said date until the fall of 1864; that by reason of such use 
and occupation extensive repairs were necessary to restore the building to the 
condition in which it was at the time the said military forces first took posses- 
sion of the same, and the reasonable rental value thereof, including the repairs 
aforesaid, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of 
April, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Culpeper, Va., as 
a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church 
building of the Baptist Church of Culpeper, Va., and used and damaged the 
same. Such use, occupation, and damage was then and there reasonably worth 
the sum of seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Couet. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



282 ALLOWANCE OF CBETAIN" CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11614. Trustees of the First Baptist Church 
of Alexandria, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 646, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
' States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed, out of any money m the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the trustees of the First Baptist Church 
of Alexandria, Virginia, the sum of six thousand eight hundred and fifty dol- 
lars for the use and occupation and damage done said church building by the 
United States troops during the late war." 

The trustees of the First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court October 5, 1904, in which they make the fol- 
lowing allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the month of June, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of the said First Baptist 
Church and used the same for hospital purposes from said date for a period of 
three years. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and 
the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the same to the condition in which 
it was when said troops first took possession, was the sum of $6,850, for which 
no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The First Baptist Church of Alexandria, Va., during the war for the sup- 
pression of the rebellion, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took and 
occupied the church building belonging to the First Baptist Church of Alex- 
andria, Va., from May, 1862, until the close of the war, for hospital purposes, 
and damaged the same. Said use and occupation, including damages incident 
thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of three thousand nine hundred 
dollars ($3,900). 

By the Coubt. 
Filed January 9, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this day 12th day of January, 1905. 
[seal] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 283 

TRUSTEES OF THE JOHN MANN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
(COLORED), OF WINCHESTER, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, 11732 and 11612. Trustees John Mann Methodist 
Episcopal Church (colored), of Winchester, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to this court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL for the relief of the trustees of John Mann Methodist Episcopal Church 
(colored), of Winchester, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of John Mann Methodist 
Episcopal Church (colored), of Winchester, Virginia, the sum of one thousand 
eight hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church building by the 
military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of John Mann Methodist Episcopal Church (colored), of Win- 
chester, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court May 5, 1905, in 
which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the 
spring of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of John Mann Methodist Episcopal 
Church (colored), of Winchester, Va., and used and occupied the same for 
hospital and barracks from said date until the close of the war ; that the 
reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in 
which it was when the said military forces first took possession of the same, 
was the sum of $1,800, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
October, 1905. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the John Mann Methodist Episcopal 
Church (colored), of Winchester, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of tbe church build- 
ing of John Mann Methodist Episcopal Church (colored), of Winchester, Va., 
and used, occupied, and damaged the same. The reasonable value of such use 
and occupation and damage to said church building during the period it was 
occupied by the military forces was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), for 
which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. A claim for repairs to said church building was presented to the Quar- 
termaster-General in the year 1866, and was disallowed for want of jurisdic- 
tion. 

By the Coust. 
Filed May 7, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of May, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



284 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE MASSAPONAX BAPTIST CHURCH, MASSAPONAX, 

VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12445. Trustees of Massaponax Baptist Church, 
of Massaponax, Virginia, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

*' A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of Massaponax Baptist Church, of Massaponax, 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted, by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Massaponax Baptist 
Church, of Massaponax, Spottsylvania County, Virginia, the sum of five hundred 
dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to said church building and 
property by the military forces of the United States during the war between 
the States." 

The trustees of Massaponax Baptist Church, of Massaponax, Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court October 18, 1906, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
May 8, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of General 
Grant, took possession of the church building of Massaponax Baptist Church, 
of Massaponax, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes; 
that by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore 
the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession was the sum of $500, for which no payment has been 
made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of 
February, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

i FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Massaponax Baptist Church, of Massaponax, Va., as a church, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- 
thority, took possession of the church property belonging to the Massaponax 
Baptist Church, of Massaponax, Va., and used the same for hospital purposes' 
for a brief period of time. The reasonable rental value," together with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one hundred 
and ninety-five dollars ($195), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The within claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- 
lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is 
given why the same was not done. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 28 5> 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF GARYS, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11772. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, at Garys, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Mthodist Episcopal Church, at Garys, 
Prince George County, Virginia. 

■ "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America m Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, at Garys, Prince George County, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dol- 
lars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Garys, Prince George 
County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in 
which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Garys, Prince George County, 
Va., and removed the said building, appropriating the material to the use of 
the Army in building winter quarters during the winter of 1864. That said 
building at the time of its removal as aforesaid was reasonably worth the sum 
of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of 
January, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church at 
Garys, Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took posses- 
sion of the church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church at 
Garys, Va., and appropriated the materials contained therein for winter quar- 
ters during the year 1864. Such materials were then and there reasonably 
worth the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 8, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF 

CULPEPER, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11665. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Culpeper, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

" A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of the 

town of Culpeper, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church South, of the town of Culpeper, Virginia, out of any 
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three thousand 
dollars, for use, damage, and partial destruction of their church property by 
the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va., ap- 
peared and filed their petition in this court February 26, 1906, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
August, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of 
General Pope, and during the winter of 1S63 and 1864 the said military forces 
of the United States, under command of General Meade, took possession of and 
used and occupied for military purposes the church building of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va. That the reasonable rental value 
of said building during the period it was so used and occupied, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the 
time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $3,000, 
for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of 
May, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Culpeper, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
during the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va., and used and occu- 
pied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said build- 
ing during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to 
restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said 
military forces took possession, was the sum of eighteen hundred and fifty dol- 
lars ($1,850), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as 
aforesaid. 

By the Cottbt. 
Filed May 21, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of May, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 287 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF 

JEFFERSONTON, VA. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11791. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Jeffersonton, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1906, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1SS7, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Jeffersonton, Culpeper County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Jeffersonton, Culpeper County, Virginia, the sum of five hun- 
dred and seventy-two dollars, for use, damage, and destruction of their church 
property by the Union troops during the war between the States." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Jeffersonton, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court October 5, 1906, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That at various times during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion 
the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of 
the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Jeffersonton, 
Va., and used the same as a temporary hospital; that during the winter of 
1868-64 the said military forces, under command of General Sedgwick, removed 
the pews, pulpit, doors, and windows and appropriated the same to the use 
of the Army. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the time it was occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in 
which it was at the time the said military forces took possesson, was the sum 
of $572, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of 
January, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following J 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South of Jeffersonton, Va., as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building 
belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Jeffersonton, Va., and 
used and occupied the same at parious times from 1862 until 1865 for the tran- 
sient accommodation of wounded soldiers. The reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period of occupancy, together with the damage in exces of 
ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars 
($325), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by 
resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is 
given why such was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 28, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



288 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF 

STEPHENS CITY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11771. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church . South, of Stephens City, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OE CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation of a church building by the military 
forces of the United States, and for the destruction of the parsonage connected 
therewith. 

On the 23d day of February, 1905, the United States Senate, by resolution, 
referred to the court, under the act of March 3, 1887, a bill in the following 
words : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Newtown, 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of Newtown, Virginia, the sum of four thousand dollars, for the use of 
and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court and filed their petition, in which they 
make, in substance, the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about 
the fall of 1863 the military forces of the United States under the command of 
Major-General Sheridan, while in possession of the town set fire to and totally 
destroyed the brick parsonage belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, at Stephens City, Va. That thereafter the said military forces removed 
the brick belonging to the said building and appropriated the same to the use 
of the army in building quarters. That said building at that time was reason- 
ably worth the sum of $3,000. 

That on or about the fall of 1864 the said military forces of the United States 
took possession of the church building of the said church and used and occu- 
pied the same for hospital purposes for a period of several months. That the 
reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of 
$1,000, no part of which has been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 31st day of 
January, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The conrt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stephens City, Va., as a 
church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late 
civil war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States took possession of the church building and used and occu- 
pied the same for hospital purposes for three or four months, and after they 
had vacated the church, but while the troops were still in the vicinity of the 
church, the parsonage belonging to said church was burned, but by whom and 
for what purpose does not appear otherwise tban the presence of the troops. 

The reasonable rental of the church, together with the damage thereto in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was five hundred dollars ($500). The par- 
sonage so burned was at the time and place reasonably worth the sum of 
thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300). 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Gov- 
ernment until its presentation to Congress and reference by resolution of the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 289 

United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, as aforesaid; nor- Is any 
evidence offered to show why the claim was not heretofore presented to some 
Department of the Government. 

By the Cotjbt. 
Filed February 4, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF 

SUFFOLK, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11798. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

In the above-entitled claim for use and occupation of and injury to real estate 
belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond 
County, State of Virginia, by the military forces of the United States during 
the late civil war, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress for the re- 
lief of the claimant, being Senate bill No. 7068. Said bill reads as follows: 

"Be it enacted by the Senate .and Souse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, State of Vir- 
ginia, the sum of five thousand dollars for use of and damages to church build- 
ings by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the 
rebellion." 

Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on the 28th day 
of February, A. D. 1905, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved 
March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of 
February, 1906. 

C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appear for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That during the late civil war the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suf- 
folk, Nansemond County, Va., was the owner p* certain real estate in said city of 
Suffolk ; that during said war there was situated upon said land two substan- 
tially constructed brick church buildings, one about 45 by 65 feet, and the other 
about 35 by 50 feet ; that the value of said two church buildings during the^civil 
war was about $25,000; that during the said war the United States military 
forces, under proper authority, took possession of said two church buildings and 
occupied the same as a hospital, ordnanf "^nartnient, storage house, and other 
purposes. That said claim is made as follows : 

Injury to old church $2, 000 

Rent of old church for two years, being 10 per cent of its value, per 

annum 1, 000 

Injury to new church : • 1, 000 

Rent of new church for one year at 10 per cent per annum 1, 400 

Total [ 5,400 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., was loyal to the Government of the United 
States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for 
military purposes, two church buildings belonging to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va. The reasonable rental value 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 19 



290 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of said buildings, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the 
sum of two thousand one hundred dollars ($2,100), for which no payment ap- 
pears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 12, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of March, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF 

WARRENTON, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11794. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Warrenton, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 

Warrenton, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and 
he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Warrenton, Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use of 
and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., 
appeared and hied their petition in this court April 28, 1905, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall 
of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took 
possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Warrenton, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes at 
various times until the close of the war. That the reasonable rental value of 
said building during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs neces- 
sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said 
military forces took possession, was the sum of $3,000. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of 
October, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Warrenton, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- 
ing of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., and used 
and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of 
said building during the period of such use and occupation, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at 
the time the military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of 
eleven hundred and ninety dollars ($1,190). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 6, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 291 

TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF FREDERICKS- 
BURG, VA. 

fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11793. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of 
Fredericksburg, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 8, 1S87, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, for 
the use of and damage to its church building by the military forces of the United 
States during the war between the States." 

Th trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
December, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, of Fredericks- 
burg, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes ; that by reason 
of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time said occupation commenced 
was the sum of $3,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of 
May, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Fredericks- 
burg, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., and used and occupied 
the same for hospital purposes. By reason of such occupancy repairs were nec- 
essary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was 
so occupied, including the repairs Decessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of two thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($2,625), for which 
no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never filed before any department or officer of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as afore- 
said. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 21, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of May, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



292 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF McDOWELL, HIGHLAND 

COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11613. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of 
McDowell, Highland County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act : 

[S. 645, 58th Cong., 1st sess.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Highland County, 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and Blouse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of 
Highland County, Virginia, the sum of three hundred dollars, for use of and 
damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, Highland County, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court July 14, 1906, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
May 3, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General 
Milroy, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, sit- 
uate near McDowell, in Highland County, Va., and used and occupied the same 
for hospital purposes for about four weeks. That by reason of said occupancy 
repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore said building to the condition in 
which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum 
of $300, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
December, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, 
Highland County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
belonging to the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, Highland County, Va., and 
used the same for hospital purposes for about four weeks. As a result of such 
occupancy repairs were necessary to the church building, the same being dam- 
aged. Such damage was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and fifty 
dollars ($150), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. This claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress as aforesaid and its reference to this court, 
and no reason is shown why this was not done. 

By the Cotjet. 

Filed December 17, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 293 

TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WARRENTON, VA. 

.[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11676. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of 
Warrenton, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as 
the Tucker Act. 

" A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church at Warrenton, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, directed and authorized, out of any money not otherwise 
appropriated, to pay to the treasurer of the Presbyterian Church at Warrenton, 
Virginia, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, for the use and occu- 
pation and damage done said church building by the United States troops dur- 
ing the late war, the said sum of one thousand two hundred dollars being the 
amount fixed by the officer who assessed the damages." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court February 12, 1906, in which they make the fol- 
lowing allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or 
about April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
and under command of General Blenker, took possession of the church building 
of the Presbyterian Church at Warrenton, Va., and used the same for military 
purposes, and that said building was used by various commands of the United 
States Army at various times from said date until the close of the war. That 
by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessaiy, and the cost to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces 
first took possession, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been 
made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of 
May, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, 
Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, Va., and used and occupied the same 
for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the 
period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building 
to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took posses- 
sion, was the sum of eight hundred and ninety dollars ($890.00), for which no 
payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 28, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 1st day of June, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



294 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE ST. PAUL REFORMED CHURCH, OF WOOD- 
STOCK, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12520. Trustees of the St. Paul Reformed Church, 
of Woodstock, Virginia, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 27, 1906, Senate bill No. 5918, Fifty-ninth Congress, was introduced 
in the United States Senate for the relief of the St. Paul Reformed Church, of 
Woodstock, Virginia, said bill reading as follows, to wit : 

"A BILL For the relief of the Saint Paul Reformed Church, of Woodstock, Virginia. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Saint Paul Reform 
Church, of Woodstock, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars in full com- 
pensation for the use and occupation of and damage to property by the United 
States authorities during the civil war." 

On June 13, 1906, said bill with accompanying papers was referred to this 
court by resolution of the United States Senate, for findings of fact under the 
terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as 
the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 9th day of 
January, 1907. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John 
Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Shenandoah, State of Virginia ; that they are the duly elected and acting trus- 
tees of the St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va. ; that said St. Paul 
Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va., existed before and during the late civil 
war and has continued in existence until the present time ; that during said war 
said church was the owner of certain land in the town of Woodstock, Va., com- 
prising two lots, upon which was situated a substantially constructed house of 
worship, being 40 by 50 feet in dimensions, and with galleries ; that said build- 
ing was comfortably fitted and furnished, and that the lots upon which said 
building stood were inclosed by a substantial fence ; that during said war the 
United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said 
premises and used and occupied the same for military purposes ; that the reason- 
able worth of the rental of said : premises and of the damages incident to such 
occupation is $1,000. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va., remained, as an organi- 
zation, loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil 
war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property 
belonging to the St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va., and occupied the 
same for about one month and a half. The reasonable rental value of said 
building for such period, together with the damage to said building and the 
fencing inclosing the same, was then and there the sum of three hundred and 
twenty-five dollars ($325), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. This claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court in April, 1906, 
by resolution of the United States Senate, and no reason is given why such was 
not done. 

BY THE COTTBT. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 295 

TRUSTEES OF TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, OF STEPHENS CITY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11785. Trustees of Trinity Lutheran Church, of 
Stephens City, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 23, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the reilef of the trustees of Saint Paul's Lutheran Church, of Stephens 

City, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint Paul's Lutheran 
Church, of Stephens City, Virginia, the sum of one thousand one hundred 
dollars for use and occupation of and damage to their church property by the 
military forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Trinity Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court September 7, 1905, in which they make the fol- 
lowing allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
October 19, 1864, the military forces of the United States under command of 
Major-General Sheridan took possession of the church building of Trinity Luth- 
eran Church, at Stephens City, Va., and used the same for hospital purposes for 
a period of about six months. That the reasonable rental value of said building 
during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $1,100, for which no payment 
has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of 
February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It apears from the evidence that the Trinity Lutheran Church, of Stephens 
City, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for 
military purposes, the church building belonging to the Trinity Lutheran 
Church, of Stephens City, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, 
together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of five 
hundred dollars ($500), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 19, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of March, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



296 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES UNION CHURCH, FALMOUTH, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11670. Trustees of Union Church of Fal- 
mouth, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 2774, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

" A BILL for the relief of the trustees of Union Church of Falmouth, Stafford County, 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury- 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of Union 
Church of Falmouth, Stafford County, Virginia, out of any money not other- 
wise appropriated, the sum of one thousand dollars, for the use, occupation, 
and damage to said church property during the war between the States." 

The trustees of Union Church at Falmouth, Va., appeared and filed their 
petition in this court May 11, 1905, in which they make the following 
allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the month of April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of the Union Church at Fal- 
mouth, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period 
of about four months ; that by reason of such use and occupation extensive 
repairs were necessary, and it cost the sum of $1,000 to restore the building to 
the same condition in which it was when the said military forces first took 
possession, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of 
October, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Union Church, of Falmouth, in the 
State of Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that during the 
war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United 
States, by proper authority, took possession of the Union Church, of Falmouth, 
in the State of Virginia, and used and occupied the said church building for 
hospital purposes for a period of something like four months, and that by rea- 
son of such occupancy and use repairs were necessary to restore the building 
to the same condition it was when the said military forces of the United States 
first took possession of the same. The reasonable value of said use and occu- 
pation was the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750). No payment 
appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed November 6, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 297 

TRUSTEES OF WASHINGTON STREET METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH SOUTH, OF ALEXANDRIA, VA. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11606. Trustees of Washington Street Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 635, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Alexandria, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America m Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Washington Street 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Virginia, the sum of six 
thousand six hundred and fifteen dollars and thirty-nine cents, for use of and 
injury to church building by the military forces of the United States during 
the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Alexandria, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 29, 1904, 
in which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or 
about January 1, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of Washington Street Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church South, at Alexandria, Va., and used and occupied the 
same for hospital purposes from said date until on or about September, 1865. 

That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable 
.rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when 
the said military authorities first took possession of the same, was the sum of 
$6,615, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Washington Street Methodist Episco- 
pal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took pos- 
session of and used for hospital purposes the church building belonging to the 
Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., 
from January 6, 1862, until the close of the war, and damaged the same. The 
said use and occupation, including damages incident thereto, was reasonably 
worth the sum of four thousand and six hundred dollars ($4,600). 

By the Couet. 
Filed January 9, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of January, 1905. 
[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 



298 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VESTRY AQUIA PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, STAFFORD 

COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11667. Vestry of Aquia Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of Stafford County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : ' 

" [S. 2771, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford 

County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of Aquia Protestant Episco- 
pal Church, of Stafford County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hun- 
dred dollars in full for damages done said church building by the Army of the 
United States during the late war." 

The vestry of Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County., Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court February 8, 1905, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of 
General Sigel, took possession of the church building of Aquia Protestant Epis- 
copal church, of Stafford County, Va., and used and occupied the same during 
said fall and the following winter for military purposes. That by reason of 
such occupancy repairs were necessary and it cost the sum of $1,500 to restore 
the said building to the condition in which it was when said troops first took 
possession of the same. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
April, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under, his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 
I 

FINDINGS OF FACT . 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, 
of Stafford County, Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the church building 
belonging to the Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Va., 
was taken possession of by the military forces of the United States by proper 
authority in the fall of 1862 and used and damaged. The reasonable rental 
value thereof and the repairs incidental to such use and occupation were the 
sum of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 299' 

VESTRY OF LAMBS CREEK PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, KING 

GEORGE COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11677. Vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, of King George County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

" A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, 

Virginia.] 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America m Congress assembled, That the Treasurer of the United 
States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of Lambs Creek 
Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Virginia, the sum of two 
thousand five hundred dollars, in full for use and damages done said church 
building by the Army of the United States during the late war between the 
States." 

The vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George 
County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court June 16, 1906, in 
which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall 
of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General 
Burnside, took possession of the church building of Lambs Creek Protestant 
Episcopal Church, of King George County, Va., and used and occupied the same 
for military purposes until the spring of 1863. That the reasonable rental value 
of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs 
necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time 
the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,500, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of 
October, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, 
by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the claimant, the 
Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Va., as a 
church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took posses- 
sion of the building belonging to said Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of King George County, Va., and occupied the same for military pur- 
poses. The reasonable rental value of the building during said occupancy, to- 
gether with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of eight hun- 
dred dollars ($800), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 12, 1906. . . 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



300 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VESTRY OF ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF REMINGTON, VA. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11673. Vestry of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, 
of Remington, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

J 'A BILL For the relief of the vestry of the Episcopal Church of Remington, Fauquier 

County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
■of America in Congress assembled, That the Treasurer of the United States be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of the Episcopal Church at Rem- 
ington, Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, in full for 
damages done said church building by the Army of the United States during the 
late war." 

The vestry of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court April 3, 1908, in which they make the following 
allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of 
General Bayard, took possession of the parsonage building, and a lot of lumber 
which had been procured for the purpose of erecting a church building, belong- 
ing to St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., and removed the said 
lumber and a portion of said building, and that thereafter General Pope's 
army encamped there and completed the destruction of the said parsonage. 

That said parsonage building and lumber at the time of its removal and de- 
struction was reasonably worth the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has 
been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
April, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
•of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of 
Remington, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took, used, 
and damaged the church building and church parsonage of the St. Luke's 
Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., and certain lumber designed for the 
building of a new church at Remington, Va. Said property so taken and used 
and damaged was reasonably worth at the time of its taking, use, and damage, 
the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars ($650), for which no payment appears 
to have been made. 

III. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, so in possession of the said church 
property, and in an artillery firing between the said military forces of the late 
Confederate States, the said church property was set on fire and completely 
destroyed. The evidence does not satisfy the court whether the destruction 
was occasioned by the fire from the military forces opposing the military forces 
of the United States or whether the property was set on fire and destroyed by 
the military forces of the United States. The church building and parsonage 
were destroyed by fire, that is, the destruction by fire ensuing the taking and 
use and damage of the property set forth in finding II, and the buildings so 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 301 

destroyed amounted in value at the time of the destruction to the sum of seven 
hundred dollars ($700), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

IV. The claim was never presented to any department or officer of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as- 
aforesaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of June, 1906. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Cleric Court of Claims. 

VESTRY OF ST. PAUL'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF HAY- 
MARKET, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11799. Vestry of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 7243, Fifty -eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Saint Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of 
Haymarket, Prince William County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of St. Paul's Protestant 
Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Virginia, the sum of 
one thousand five hundred dollars, for the use and destruction of their church 
property by the Union Army during the Avar between the States." 

The vestry of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince 
William County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 14, 
1906, in which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall 
of 1862, the military forces of the United States, consisting of the Eleventh 
Pennsylvania Regiment of Infantry, took possession of the church building of 
St. Paul's Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Va., and 
used and occupied the same for military purposes ; that other commands of 
the same Army used and occupied the said building at various times from 
said date until the close of the war ; that by reason of such occupancy repairs 
were necessary, and the cost to restore the said building to the condition in 
which it was at the time the said military forces first took possession was the 
sum of $1,500 ; for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of 
October, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq:, appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of Haymarket, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States during the late civil war. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Va., and used and 
occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said 
church building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs 
necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said 



<302 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

military forces took possession, was the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) ; 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VESTRY OF ST. STEPHEN'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CUL- 

PEPER, VA. 

JCourt of Claims. Congressional case No. 11657. The Vestry of St. Stephen's Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 2761, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

""A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Saint Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, 

of Culpeper, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
■States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the vestry of Saint 
Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Virginia, out of any money 
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thousand dollars, 
for use of and damage to their church property by the miltary forces of the 
United States during the late war." 

The vestry of St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va., 
.appeared and filed their petition in this court February .2, 1905, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, under command of General Meade, took possession 
of the church building of St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Cul- 
peper, Va., and occupied the same for hospital purposes. That by reason of 
such occupancy repairs were necessary and it cost the sum of $1,100 to restore 
the building to the same condition in which it was when said occupation com- 
menced, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of 
May, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, St. Stephen's Protestant 
Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government 
of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession 
of and used at various times and damaged the church building belonging to the 
St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va. Such use and 
occupation of and damage to said property was then and there reasonably worth 
the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 303 

WARDENS MERCHANT'S HOPE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VA. 

I Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11615. Wardens and Vestrymen of Merchant's 
Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, Va., v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"[S. 647, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

4 A BILL For the relief of the wardens and vestrymen of Old Merchant's Hope Episcopal 
Church, of Prince George County, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Seriate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That tlie Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the wardens and vestrymen of the Old 
Merchant's Hope Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, \ irginia, tne sum 
of fifteen hundred dollars, for use of and damage to the cnurch building by the 
military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The wardens and vestrymen of Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, 
of Prince George County, Va., appeared and tiled their petition in this court 
""August 1, 1904, in wtiich they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the 1st of October, 1804, the military forces of the United States, under com- 
mand of General Grant, took possession of the cnurch building and parsonage 
of the Merchant s Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, situated near Gee, Prince 
George County, in the State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for 
a period of about six montbs for military purposes. 

That bj r reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the 
reasonable rental value of said building during the period ol said occupancy, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the buildings to the condition in which 
they were when said occupation began, was the sum of $1,500. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both^ides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of Prince George County, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government 
of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
October 1, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of 
General Grant, took possession of the church buildings of the Merchant's Hope 
Protestant Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, State of Virginia, and 
used and occupied the same until the close of the war. By reason of such occu- 
pancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said church 
buildings during such occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the 
buildings to the condition in which they were when such occupancy began, was 
the sum of eleven hundred and fifty dollars ($1,150), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 5, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



304 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

WARDENS OF ST. THOMAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH, MIDDLETOWN, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11684. Wardens of St. Thomas Episcopal 
Church, of Middletown, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

On April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, the following 
bill was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the terms 
of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the 
Tucker Act, to wit : 

"A BILL For the relief of the Saint Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Frederick 

County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Saint Thomas 
Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of one 
thousand dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of 
property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of 
October, 1905. 

Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the, 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : 

That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Frederick, State of Virginia ; that they are the duly elected, qualified, and 
acting wardens of St. Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Frederick 
County, Va. ; that during the late civil war said church was the owner of cer- 
tain real estate in Middletown, Va., upon which was situated a substantial 
brick church building; that said building was used and occupied at various 
times and for various purposes by the United States military forces during a 
period of about three years during said war ; that as the result of such use 
and occupation said building was greatly damaged, to wit, in the sum of one 
thousand dollars ($1,000). 

Upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel 
on both sides, the court makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

• 

I. It appears from the evidence that St. Thomas Episcopal Church, of Mid- 
dletown, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took pos- 
session of the church building belonging to the St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 
of Middletown, Va., and used the same for various purposes for a period of 
about three years and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together 
with damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred 
dollars ($600). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Couet. 
Filed October 30, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 305 

WILDERNESS BAPTIST CHURCH, SPOTTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11786. Trustees of the Wilderness Baptist 
Church, of Spottsylvania County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known the Tucker Act : 

"[S. 6173, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania 

County, Virginia., 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Wilderness Baptist 
Church, of Spottsylvania County, Virginia, the sum of six hundred dollars, for 
use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United 
States during the war between the States." 

The trustees of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court June 9, 1905, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or 
about the month of May, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority took possession of the church building of the Wilderness Bap- 
tist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Va., and used and occupied the same for 
hospital purposes ; that by reason of such use and occupation repairs were neces- 
sary, and the cost to restore the building to the same condition in which it was 
at the time the said military forces took possession of the same was the sum of 
$600, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of* 
January, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., appeared for the defense and protection »of the 
interests of the United States. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 
I. 

It appears from the evidence that the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsyl- 
vania County, Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States took possession of the church building of the Wilderness Baptist 
Church, of Spottsylvania County, Virginia, and used the same for hospital pur- 
poses. By reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to re- 
store the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military 
forces took possession of the same was the sum of three hundred dollars 
($300.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 15, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 
S. Kep. 382, 60-1 20 



306 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ROBERT M. WILKINSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11525. Robert M. Wilkinson, administrator of 
the estate of Samuel Marsh, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 2<>th day of April, 1°04, by 
resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 4360, Fifty-eighth Congress; second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Robert M. Wilkinson, administrator of the estate of Samuel 

Marsh. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, to the legal representatives of Samuel Marsh, of the 
city of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, the sum of two thousand five hundred 
and seventy-five dollars and sixteen cents, that being the amount to which he 
is justly entitled for a large quantity of timber, boards, and bricks taken from 
the said decedent by the Quartermaster's Department of the United States 
Army and appropriated to the use of the said department in the months of Au- 
gust, October, and November, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and the month 
of February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three." 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court October 22, 1904, in 
which he makes the following allegations : 

That he is a resident of Norfolk, Va. ; that he is the duly appointed adminis- 
trator of Samuel Marsh, deceased, late a citizen of the United States, residing 
in Norfolk, Va. ; that in the years 1862 and 1863 said Samuel Marsh was the 
owner of lumber and boards and 2,900 feet of Philadelphia pressed brick, all 
of the value of $2,575.16, which said lumber and brick were in his possession 
in said city of Norfolk, and were taken from him by the Quartermaster's De- 
partment of the United States, as appears in the following certificate : 

Office Assistant Qtjaetermastee, 

Norfolk, Va., August 15, 1S6S. 
This is to certify that the articles herein mentioned have been received at 
the dates specified from Mr. Samuel Marsh, of the city of Norfolk, by and for 
the use of the Quartermaster's Department, and are to be paid for at the close 
of the present war on proof of ownership and Joyalty : 

1862. 
Aug. 2. 1,000 feet 1-inch white boards. 

6. 3,482 feet 1-inch white pine boards. 
1,163 feet P. pine boards. 

640 feet 2 by 4 rails. 

7. 512 feet white pine boards. 

1,000 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 
13. 1,000 feet 1\ P. pine boards. 

15. 1,000 feet clear W. P. boards. 

16. 1,000 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 
26. 800 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 
28. 500 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 

Oct. 25. 2,373 feet clear white pine boards. 

561 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 
28. 3,193 feet clear white pine boards. 
Nov. 14. 1,011 feet clear white pine boards. 
19. 1,073 feet clear white pine boards. 
504 feet 6-inch dressed pine boards. 

25. 1,000 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 
1,000 feet 1-inch clear white pine boards. 

Dec. 16. 2,500 feet 6-inch clear white pine boards. 

500 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 
254 feet 1-inch cherry boards. 

26. 2,900 feet Philadelphia press brick. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 307 

1863. 
Feb. 7. 3,000 feet li-inch clear white pine. 
12. 3,070 feet l^-inch dressed white pine. 
1,275 feet f-inch clear white pine. 
1,000 feet 6-inch dressed white pine. 
8,234 feet 1? and l? inch clear white pine. 
710 feet cherry and walnut. 

Edwin Ludlow, 
Captain and Assistant Quartermaster. 

That the said Marsh and jour petitioner have at all times rendered true 
faith and allegiance to the United States. 

That after repeated attempts to collect on property taken it was referred to 
the Court of Claims from the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, under the Bowman Act, but that under said reference the court 
held, December 17, 1888, that said Marsh could not recover under that reference. 
Said case was again referred to the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act, 
approved March 3, 1887. That the sum named in said bill, to wit, the sum of 
$2,575.16, is justly due claimant. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyaltv and merits and laches on the 
8th day of June, 1906. 

Messrs. F. S. Bright and Ralph H. Riddleberger appeared for the claimant, 
and the Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Samuel Marsh, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States, throughout the war of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in the years 1862-63, 
in the city of Norfolk, State of Virginia, the military forces of the United States, 
by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent 
property of the kind and character described in the petition, the property of 
claimant's decedent, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of 
eight hundred and thirty dollars ($830), for which no payment appears to have 
been made. 

By the Cotjbt. 
Filed October 22, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of December, A. D. 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSEPH WILLIAMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10218. Joseph Williams v. The United States. ] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 16th day of May, 1900, by 
resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 4577. Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of Joseph Williams. 

" Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Joseph Williams the sum of two thou- 
sand four hundred dollars, for stores and supplies furnished by said Williams 
to the United States military at Fredericksburg, Virginia, December thirteenth, 
eighteen hundred and sixty-two." 



308 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court, in which he makes 
the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States, native born, now residing in the city 
of Washington, D. C. ; that he resided during the late war of the rebellion at 
Fredericksburg, in the State of Virginia, and that during the battle of Fred- 
ericksburg, while your petitioner was on the firing line with and rendering 
service to General Patrick of the Union Army, the United States military forces, 
under command of General Burnside, by proper authority, took from your 
petitioner quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of twenty 
four hundred dollars and appropriated the same to the use of the United States 
Army, as follows : 

Beds and bedding, including feather beds and bolsters, pillows, sheets, 

covers, and blankets . $1,000 

Wearing apparel of petitioner, his wife, and daughters 500 

Meat, corn, flour, coffee, tea, sugar, and other food, and tableware 500 

Tool chest with fuli set of carpenter's tools 200 

One fine bay horse 200 

Total 2, 400 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of 
October, 1904. C. C. Clements appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by George M. Anderson, his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant herein was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

II. There was taken from the claimant, in Spottsylvania County, State of 
Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United 
States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above de- 
scribed, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred 
and twenty-one dollars ($821), for which no payment appears to. have been 
made. 

III. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the 
act of March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 
15th June, 1878. Under the act 3d March, 1887, which provides that where 
there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim, the court shall report 
whether there are " any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," the claimant 
has proved that he placed his claim, in 1864, in the hands of one Howard 
Skinker, who failed to file it with the Southern Claims Commission. 

As to the question whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to 
excuse the claimant, the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively 
within the judgment and discretion of Congress. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 
A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of December, 1904. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 309 

ZOAR BAPTIST CHURCH, BRISTERSBURG, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11675. Trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of 
Bristersburg, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Fauquier 

County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of 
Bristersburg, Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars, in 
full for the use and destruction of said church by the United States troops 
during the late war." 

The trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court December 12, 1905, in which they make the fol- 
lowing allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and jn the 
spring of 1S62, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, 
Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until the fall of T862. 
That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so 
used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to 
the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took posses- 
sion, was the sum of $800, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of 
March, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 



It appears from the evidence that the Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, 
State of Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the war of the rebellion. 

II. 

During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the 
United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the 
Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Va., and used and occupied the same for 
hospital purposes. That the cost to restore said church building to the condi- 
tion in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was 
the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

III. 

The claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior to 
its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 19, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of March, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



310 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF ANDREW CHAPEL, METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
SOUTH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12424. Trustees, Andrew Chapel, Methodist 
Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and injury to a church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 
1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following 
words : 

"[S. 2591, Fifty-ninth Congress, First session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Fairfax County, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Trustees of Andrew Chapel, Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Virginia, the sum of one 
thousand dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military 
forces of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 31st day of October, 1907, and 
filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the winter of 1862 and 1863 the military forces of the United 
States, consisting of the Sixth Michigan Cavalry and other organizations, took 
possession of the church building of Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Fairfax County, Va., and used and occupied same for quarters. That 
during said occupation all of the furniture and fixtures were destroyed, nearly 
all of the flooring was burnt out, and the walls were badly defaced. That the 
reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of 
$1,000, no part of which has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of 
February, 1908. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense aud protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Andrew Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, 
Va., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of said church building described in the petition and 
used the same for quarters and damaged the same. Said use and occupation, 
together with the damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and 
there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), no 
part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is 
given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall 
be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established 
legal remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 311 

TRUSTEES OF FLETCHER CHAPEL, OF KING GEORGE COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11611. Trustees of Fletcher Chapel, of King 
George County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

[S. 643, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Fletcher Chapel, in King George County, Va. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Fletcher Chapel, in King 
George County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full for 
the use of and destruction of said church by the United States troops during the 
late war." 

The trustees of Fletcher Chapel of King George County, Va.. appeared and 
filed their petition in this court July 8, 1904, in which they make the following 
allegations : 

That during the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Fletcher 
Chapel and used and occupied the same for a smallpox hospital from said date 
until the spring of 1863, when they destroyed the same by fire to prevent the 
spread of the smallpox. 

That said building was about 30 by 40 feet, constructed of frame woodwork, 
was in a good state of repair at the time the military forces of the United States 
took possession of the same, and was reasonably worth the sum of $1,500, for 
which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of 
December, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Fletcher Chapel, of King George County, 
Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout 
the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of Fletcher Chapel, of King 
George County, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for a small- 
pox hospital for a period of six months. At the termination of said occupancy 
the said military forces of the United States destroyed said church building by 
fire to prevent the spread of contagion. The reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period of said occupancy, including the cost to restore the 
building to the condition in which it was at the time the military forces of the 
United States took possession thereof, was the sum of one thousand five hundred 
dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 22, 1904. 
A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of December, 1904. 
[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



312 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF PARIS, 

VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12970. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Paris, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words : 

" [S. 6764, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 

Paris, Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Paris, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full com- 
pensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by 
United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of this church appeared in this court on April 30, 1907, and 
filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States 
occupied the church property of the 'Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Paris, Va., for camping and other purposes and used the same as a hospital 
for the wounded for some time; that many brick were taken out of the wall 
during said occupation, so that the building finally fell down and became a 
total loss; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occu- 
pation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same 
condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,000, for which no pay- 
ment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance 
to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily 
aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Govern- 
ment. 

The case was brought to a hearing in loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
February, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by William H. Lamar, esq., appeared for the defense and protection .of 
the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Paris, Va., as an organization 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition, and 
used and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reason- 
able rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred 
dollars ($200), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by 
resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned in the state- 
ment of the case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim 
was not presented earlier. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 17, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 313 

TRUSTEES OF NEW HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH, ORANGE COUNTY, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11795. Trustees of New Hope Baptist Church, 
of Orange County, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military- 
forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 28th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1905, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in* the follow- 
ing words : 

" [S. 6959, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of New Hope Baptist Church, of Orange County, 

Virginia. 

"J5e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of New Hope Baptist Church, of 
Orange County, Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars,, for use of and dam- 
age to their church building by the military forces of the United States during 
the late war of the rebellion." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 31st day of October, 1907, and 
filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the late civil war, and on or about November 26, 1S63, the mili- 
tary forces of the United States, under command of General Meade, took pos- 
session of the church building of the New Hope Baptist Church, of Orange 
County, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until Novem- 
ber 30; that during said occupancy the pews, window shutters, and doors of 
said building were removed and appropriated to the use of the Army ; that the 
cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said 
military forces took possession was the sum of $800, no part of which has ever 
been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
February, 1908. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The New Hope Baptist Church, Orange County, Va., as an organization was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority took possession of the church building described in the petition and 
used and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reason- 
able rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages thereto in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one hundred 
and fifty dollars ($150), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned in the statement of 
the case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not 
presented earlier. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 17, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



314 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF UPPER- 

VILLE, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12987. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Upperville, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military- 
forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 2d day of March, 
1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : 

"[S. 6892, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 

Upperville, Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Upperville, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred 
dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 25th day of March, 1907, and 
filed their petition in which it is substantially averred : 

That in the spring of 1862 the military forces of the United States, under 
command of General Geary, took possession of the church building of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Va., and used and occupied the 
auditorium room for quarters for the troops and the basement of the building 
for a stable. That during said occupancy the floors, pews, pulpit, furniture, 
windows, doors, etc., were destroyed, and the cost to restore the building to the 
condition in which it was at the time the said miliary forces took possession was 
the sum of $1,500, no part of which has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of 
February, 1908. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants and .the Attorney-General, by 
Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Va., as an organiza- 
tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil 
war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of said church building described in the petition, and 
used and occupied the same for military purposes, and damaged the same. The 
reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages 
thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two 
hundred and ten dollars ($210), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned in the statement of 
the case. , 

No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not pre- 
sented earlier. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 17, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 315 



6* 



TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, UNISON, VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12984. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Unison, Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words : 

"[S. 6889. Fifty -ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 

Unison, Va. 

"Re it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pas 7 , out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Unison, Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars, in full 
compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by 
United States military forces during the civil war." 

The trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed 
their petition, in which it is substantially averred that : 

During the late civil war the military forces of the United States took pos- 
session of the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, 
Va., consisting of a well-constructed brick church building, and occupied the 
same as a hospital after a fight near by, some thirty or more wounded soldiers 
being placed in the church, and amputations and other operations were per- 
formed there; that the property was so injured as to require new floor, new 
seats, repainting, and general repairs ; that the reasonable rental value of said 
property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore it to 
the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $800, for which 
no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true 
allegiance to the Government of the Unifed States, and has not in any way 
voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the 
said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of 
February, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimants, none being adduced 
by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel 
on each side, makes the following • 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, Va., as an organization, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States by proper au- 
thority took possession of the church building described in the petition and used 
and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reasonable 
rental value of said property, together with the damages thereto in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one hundred and fifty 
dollars ($150), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of 
the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was 
not presented earlier. 

Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up 
these findings. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 27th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.' 



316 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

WEST VIRGINIA. 

MARY E. BUCKEY. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9579. Mary B. Buckey v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

By resolution of the United States Senate, adopted July 17, 1897, Senate bill 
No. 1911, Fifty-fifth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact, in 
accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and 
commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of Mary E. Buckey, of Randolph County, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and is hereby, authorized and directed, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, to pay to Mary E. Buckey, of Beverly, West Vir- 
ginia, the sum of one thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars, for the use of 
buildings as hospital at Beverly, West Virginia, and for hospital stores and sup- 
plies furnished, and for nursing of the sick and wounded of the Federal Army 
during the war of the rebellion." 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of 
May, 1906. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition alleges : 

That she is a citizen. of the United States, residing in Randolph County, 
W. Va. ; that she resided in said county and State during the late civil war, 
said county being for a portion of said war, however, in the then State of Vir- 
ginia ; that between the spring of 1861 and the spring of 1865 petitioner nursed 
many sick and wounded Federal soMiers at her home; that said services were 
performed during said period for an aggregate of at least two years ; that said 
services were reasonably worth the sum of $10 per week, making a total of 
$1,040; that during said war petitioner furnished hospital stores and supplies 
at Beverly, W. Va., for the use of the United States hospital at said place of 
the reasonable worth or value of at least $100; that the Federal military au- 
thorities took from petitioner at said place, for use of the Army, one horse, 
reasonably worth the sum of $100; that petitioner also furnished the Federal 
military authorities lumber for making coffins for Federal dead worth $20; 
total, $1,260. 

The court, upon .the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsed upon both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, in the then State of Virginia, now West 
Virginia, Randolph County, took one horse and certain lumber, as described in 
the petition, the property of claimant, the reasonable value of which, at the 
time and place of taking, was the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars ($115), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

No allowance is made for meals voluntarily furnished sick soldiers by the 
•claimant, nor for services voluntarily rendered thereto. 

III. The claim was never presented to any department or officer of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as 
aforesaid. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed May 21, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

» Assistant GlerJc Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 317 

CALEDONIA LODGE, NO. 4, INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS, 
OF SHEPHERDSTOWN, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12950. Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order 
of Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the fol- 
lowing words : 

" [S. 6643, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Caledonia Lodge, Numbered Four, Independent Order of 
Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of , Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the treasurer of Caledonia Lodge, 
Numbered Four, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for the benefit of said 
lodge, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for 
the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the property of said lodge by 
United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said lodge appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed their petition, 
in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States 
took possession of the property of the Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent 
Order of Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, W. Va., and occupied the same as a 
hospital for a considerable period after the battle of Antietam and occupied 
it several times thereafter until the close of the war, and that the said building 
and the property of the said lodge were greatly injured thereby ; that the 
reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, including the 
repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such 
occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made ; that 
the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the 
United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given 
encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day 
of February, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of 
Shepherdstown, W. Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the 
United States. 

II. During said period the miliary forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the lodge room described 
in the petition and used the same as a guardroom and damaged the same. 
The reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear,, was then and there the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars ($115), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department or officer of the 
Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court 
by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the state- 
ment of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced why the claim was 
not earlier presented. 

By the Coubt. 
Filed February 17, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



318 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

E. P. CHEWNING, ADMINISTRATOR. 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11559. E. P. Chewning, administrator of the 
estate of Kelles Chewning, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 26, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of Kelles Chewning. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the claim of Kelles Chewning, for property 
destroyed during the war of the rebellion." 

The claimant, E. P. Chewning, administrator of the estate of Kelles Chewning, 
deceased, appeared and filed his petition in this court June 29, 1906, in which 
he makes the following, allegations : • 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion his decedent 
resided in Roane County, State of West Virginia, and was the owner of certain 
buildings situated at Spencer, W. Va. 

That during the summer of 1861 the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, took possession of said buildings and used and occupied the 
same for military purposes until the close of the war, said buildings being 
occupied by the Fourth and Eleventh Virginia, United States Army, and por- 
tions of other regiments. 

That the reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period they 
were so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the same to the 
condition in which they were at the time the said military forces took posses- 
sion, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of 
December, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 

of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

i 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that Kelles Chewning, deceased, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took posses- 
sion of certain buildings belonging to decedent, situate in Spencer, West Vir- 
ginia, and used the same from about the summer of 1861 until the close of the 
war. The reasonable rental value of said buildings, together with the repairs 
necessary to put them in the same condition they were before occupancy, is the 
sum of one thousand one hundred dollars ($1,100), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

III. This claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior 
to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court aforesaid, and no 
reason is assigned for not doing so. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 17, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 319 

FETTERMAN (NOW WEST MAIN STREET) METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH, OF GRAFTON, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12949. Trustees of the Fetterman (now West 
Main Street) Episcopal Church, of Grafton, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words : 

" [S. 6642, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

""A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Fetterman (now West Main Street) 
Methodist Episcopal Church, of Grafton, West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and be is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Fetterman (now 
West Main Street) Methodist Episcopal Church, of Grafton, West Virginia, 
the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the 
occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military 
forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and 
filed their petition in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took 
possession of the property of the claimant, consisting of a well-constructed 
church building, and occupied it, partially as a hospital, partially as quarters, 
and partially for commissary supplies during a considerable period of the civil 
war, and it was much injured thereby ; that the reasonable rental value of said 
property during the time it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary 
to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was 
the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has 
at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, 
and has not, in any way, voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement 
to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of 
January, 1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
William «H. Lamar, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Fetterman (now West Main Street) Methodist Episcopal Church, of 
Grafton, W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States 
throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States for the use 
of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church property 
described in the petition and used and occupied the same at various times for 
hospital and other purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental 
value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then 
and there the sum of four hundred and ninety dollars ($490), no part of which 
appears to have been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to the court by 
resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason 
is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which 
shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of January, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



320 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

J. W. GARDNER, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11802. J. W. Gardner, administrator of the estate 
of F. A. Boeder, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1905, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the estate of Frederick A. Roeder, deceased. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Frederick A. Roeder, de- 
ceased, late of Jefferson County, West Virginia, the sum of five hundred and 
four dollars, for use and occupation of property by the military forces of the 
United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared and tiled his petition in this court May 4, 1906, in 
which he makes the following allegations : 

That he was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of the estate of 
Frederick A. Roeder, deceased, in the county court of Jefferson County, W. Va. r 
on the 19th of April, 1906. 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
July 25, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of certain buildings belonging to the estate of the said F. A. 
Roeder, deceased, situate at Harpers Ferry, W. Va., and used and occupied the 
said buildings for military purposes until on or about March 25, 1862, said mili- 
tary forces at the time being under the command of Colonel Baxter, of the 
Seventy-second Pennsylvania Zouaves, and others. 

Tbat the reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period of said 
occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the buildings to the condi- 
tion in which they were at the time the said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of $504, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2Sth day of 
May, 1906. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. # 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the 
Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for 
military purposes, certain buildings belonging to the claimant's decedent, situate 
at Harpers Ferry, State of West Virginia. The reasonable rental value of said 
buildings during the period of said occupancy, together with the repairs incident 
to such occupation, was the sum of three hundred and twenty dollars ($320), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed June S, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of November, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 321 

HARMON W. HESSEN. 

fin the United States Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12562. Harmon W. Hessen v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for stores, supplies, and services alleged to have been taken or exacted 
by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion, and for the use, occupation, and damage to real estate by 
said military forces during said war. On the 27th day of June, 1906, the United 
States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

"[S. 2239, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of Harmon W. Hessen. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is 
hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, to Harmon W. Hessen, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, the 
sum of six thousand dollars, the same being for use and occupation of buildings 
owned by him as barracks by the military authorities of the United States and for 
horses, wagons, harnesses, lumber, iron, locks, horseshoeing, blacksmithing, repairing 
wagons and artillery pieces for the military authorities of the United States from 
eighteen hundred and sixty-one to eighteen hundred and sixty-five, both inclusive." 

The claimant appeared in the court July 11, 1906, and filed his petition, in which 
it is substantially averred: 

That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion he was loyal to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States; that while residing in Oakland, Md., real and personal 
property owned by him was taken and used or damaged by the United States troops 
as follows: 

One dwelling house in Oakland was occupied by the United States officers and 
soldiers for the space of one year, during which time the partitions thereof were torn 
down, lathing and plastering removed, and the house generally damaged by the 
troops so that it had to be practically rebuilt to make it habitable. 

The rental value of which for the said period and the damage to the house 

amounting to $400. 00 

Lumber taken from him by the troops and used for constructing block- 
house, for flooring tents, and building stables, and for fuel 497. 50 

Iron for blockhouse and other purposes 460. 00 

2 wagons 300. 00 

6 horses 1, 100. 00 

6 harnesses 150. 00 

Putting 100 locks or brakes on new wagons, $10 each 1, 000. 00 

Blacksmithing, horseshoeing, wagon repairing, artillery repairing, includ- 
ing the sharpening of picks and mattocks, the making and furnishing 
chains and rough locks for teams, all kinds of large chains for hauling 
logs for the fort and blockhouse, furnishing bolts and large bars, repair 
ing and fixing wagon wheels and tongues, repairing shovels, furnishing 
new handles 3, 440. 00 

Making a total of 7, 347. 50 

The case was argued and submitted on lovalty and merits on the 6th dav of Feb- 
ruary, 1908. 

Tracy L. Jeffords, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interest of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant herein, Harmon W. Hessen, was loyal to the Government of the 
United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
used and occupied claimant's dwelling house, situate in Allegany Gounty, Md., for 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 21 



322 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

a period of one year. During said occupancy by the military forces said building 
was damaged, the partitions removed, and lathing and plastering town down. The 
reasonable value of said use and occupation and the damage to said building was the 
sum of two hundred dollars ($200), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. During the late civil war said claimant, by proper authority, performed work 
and services for the military forces of the United States of the kind and character 
described in the petition, and during said period there were taken, by proper 
authority, from claimant's premises in Allegany County, Md., by the military 
forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and 
character described in the petition, which said services and property at the time and 
place of performance and taking were reasonably worth the sum of eighteen hundred 
and thirty-five dollars ($1,835), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

IV. The claim for use, occupation, and damage to the dwelling house was never 
presented to any Department' of the Government prior to its presentation to Con- 
gress and reference to this court. Claims for a portion of the services performed 
and the property taken were presented to the War Department in 1863 and 1879, 
aggregating $345.86, and were disallowed. In 1865 the whole claim was placed in 
the hands of an attorney in Washington for collection, by whom no action appears 
to have been taken before any Department. No further action appears to have been 
taken by claimant looking to the prosecution of his claim until its reference to this 
court, as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation 
should be removed. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 25, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES M. STEPHENSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11569. James M. Stephenson v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OE CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been 
taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use 
during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the 
court by the Senate of the United States on the 26th day of April, 1904. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits and loyalty on the 24th day of 
April, 1905. William E. Richardson, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Point Pleasant, 
Mason County, W. Va. ; that throughout the war of the rebellion he resided at 
Kanawha County, W. Va., and remained loyal to the United States, giving no 
aid or comfort to the rebellion. 

During the said war in Kanawha County, W. Va., near the town of Point 
Pleasant, in September, 1862, a part of the Second West Virginia Cavalry, acting 
under competent officers, took for the use of the United States for military pur- 
poses 600 bushels of corn, then worth $1 per bushel ; that no payment was made 
for said corn or receipts or vouchers given to the claimant; that this claim has 
never been assigned or transferred and petitioner was the sole owner of said 
property and is now the only person entitled to recover therefor. 

That petitioner did not know of the existence of laws providing a method of 
obtaining compensation for property so taken, for which reason he has not here- 
tofore presented his claim. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT . 

I. It appears from the evidence that James M. Stephenson was loyal to the 
Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 323 

claimant in Kanawha Comity, W. Va., corn, as above set forth, which at the 
time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and 
forty-four dollars ($244), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 1, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF ELK BRANCH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DUFFIELDS, 

W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11*641. Trustees of Elk Branch Presbyterian 
Church, of Duffields, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill referred to the court April 27, 1904. by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"[S. 1668, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of Elk Branch Presbyterian Church ,of Jefferson County, West 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Elk Branch Presbyterian 
Church, of Jefferson County, West Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars, 
for use of property during the civil war." 

The trustees of Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, of Duffields, W. Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court November 3, 1904, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of the said Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, and used the same for 
quarters and hospital purposes during the years 1862 and 1863; that by reason 
of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of 
said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs neces- 
sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said ocupa- 
tion commenced, was the sum of $851, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of 
March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion rne military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used the church 
building of the Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, at Duffields, W. Va., for 
quarters and hospital purposes. By reason of said occupancy repairs were 
necessary, and the reasonable value of said occupancy, including repairs neces- 
sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupa- 
tion commenced, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600). No payment 
appears to have been made therefor. 

II. It appears from the evidence that the Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, 
of Duffields, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



324 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BUNKER HILL, 

W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12529. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Bunker Hill, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 3887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker 
Hill, formerly Mill Creek, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted, by the Senate anil House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Bunker Hill Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, formerly Mill Creek, West Virginia, the 
sum of one thousand and forty dollars and fifty-seven cents, being the amount 
found due said trustees by the Court of Claims." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court November 1, 1906. in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion different com- 
mands of the United States Army, consisting of the commands of Generals 
Williams and Milroy, Major Morris, of the One hundred and sixteenth Ohio 
Regiment, and others used and occupied for military purposes the church 
building of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., for a period 
of about eighteen months at various times from July 15, 1861, until April 1, 
1865. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so 
occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condi- 
tion in which it was at the time the. said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of $2,1S6.75, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of 
December, 1906. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Cnurch of 
Bunker Hill, W. Va., was loyal as a church to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used the 
church property of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., and 
used the same for military purposes at various times from July 15, 1861, to 
April 1, 1865, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said 
church, including repairs necessary to put the church in the condition it was 
before military occupancy, less ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of one 
thousand dollars ($1,000), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. This claim was not presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court, as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 24, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court 'of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 325 



TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, BARBOURS- 
VILLE, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12444. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Barboursville, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Tte following bill was referred to the court, June 13, 1906, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 1311, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Barboursville, West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay George E. Thornburg, 
G. W. Ayers, and J. E. Cyrus, trustees, one thousand five hundred dollars, out 
of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for damage to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South by Union soldiers during the years of 
eighteen hundred and sixty-three and eighteen hundred and sixty-four." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, W. 
Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 24, 1906, in which 
they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the fall of 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Barboursville, W. Va., and used and occupied the said building at 
various times until the close of the war. That among the troops occupying said 
building were Company G, Fifth West Virginia Cavalry ; part of the Thirteenth 
West Virginia Infantry ; part of the Thirty-fourth and Fortieth Ohio Regiment 
of Infantry. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was 
so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
February, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of cousel for both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, W. Va., as a 
church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late 
civil war. 

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- 
thority, occupied said church property and used the same at intervals for 
winter quarters. The reasonable rental value of said church property, together 
with damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of five 
hundred dollars ($500.00). 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the 
act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason is shown why 
such was not done. 

By the Court. 
Filed Feb. 25, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of November, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



326 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



D. B. BARBOUR AND ANDREW P. GLADDEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12561. D. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden v. United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

1 

The Lnited States Senate, on January 27, 1906, referred to the court Senate bil 
No. 2237, reading as follows: 

"A BILL For the relief of D. B. Barbour and A. P. Gladden, copartners doing business under the 
firm name of Brown, Barbour, and Gladden. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- 
thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated, to D. B. Barbour and A. P. Gladden, copartners as Brown, Barbour and 
Gladden, of Clarksburg, West Virginia, one thousand one hundred and eight dollars, 
with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the first day of 
January, eighteen huhdred and ninety-nine, to the date of payment, in full satisfac- 
tion for their claim for the increased cost of labor and materials furnished by them 
in the performance of a certain contract between the said firm of Brown, Barbour 
and Gladden and C. P. Miller, quartermaster, United States Army, dated the twenty- 
first day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, for repairing barracks and 
constructing bath house and closets at Fort Monroe, Virginia, said increased cost 
having been caused by the order of said C. P. Miller indefinitely postponing the per- 
formance by said contractors of the work under said contract and later directing them 
to proceed after the cost of labor and materials had advanced in the sum before 
stated, said. Miller reading to said contractors a telegram from the office of the 
Quartermaster-General directing that the work proceed and promising to settle the 
advance on materials and labor under the head of equity; said increased cost being 
the difference between the price at which said contractors could have furnished said 
labor and material if they had been permitted to prosecute the work without delay, 
and the price which they were compelled to pay when they were permitted by said 
C. P. Miller to proceed with the work." 

The claimants appeared and filed their amended petition January 8, 1906, in which 
they allege substantially as follows: 

That they are citizens of the United States; that on the 21st day of March, 1898, 
they, together with their partner, E. R. Brown, under the firm name of Brown, Bar- 
bour & Gladden, entered into a written contract with Maj. C. P. Miller, quartermaster 
of the United States Army, among other work to make certain repairs to barracks at 
Fort Monroe, Va., which contract provided that the work thereunder should com- 
mence on or before the — day of , 1898, and that the said repairs should be 

completed on or before the 31st day of August, 1898. which was approved by the 
Acting Quartermaster-General May i9, 1898; that before the execution of the work 
under said contract said E. R. Brown withdrew from the said firm and transferred 
his interest therein to the remaining partners, the claimants, and the work 
thereunder was all done and materials furnished by the claimants, under the 
firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, but said E. R. Brown had no interest 
in the said work or material and has no interest in the claim, as appears by a 
disclaimer under his hand and seal filed in this cause; that immediately upon the 
approval of said contract, the claimants placed orders for the necessary materials to 
make said repairs, but the quartermaster, on account of the indications of war at that 
time, indefinitely postponed the said repairs to barracks, stating that the barracks 
were needed for the soldiers, whereupon the claimants asked that they be released 
from their said contract, in response to which they were informed by the quarter- 
master that if there were advances in the prices of materials and labor the Govern- 
ment would bear the loss; that thereupon the claimants proceeded with their work 
under the contract and at the same time notified their material men and subcon- 
tractors of the postponement of said repairs, but the material men and subcontractors 
canceled their bids and contracts; that in the latter part of June, 1898, the claimants 
were notified by the quartermaster to proceed with the said repairs, wmereupon they 
notified him in writing that the cost of the necessary material and labor had increased, 
and they w r ould not proceed without having an understanding on that subject, sub- 
mitting statements from their several material men and subcontractors as to the said 
advanced cost, in response to which, and shortly thereafter, the quartermaster read to 
them a telegram from the Quartermaster-General directing that the claimants proceed 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 327 

with the work and submit the question of equity later, when it would receive due 
consideration; whereupon the claimants proceeded with and completed the said 
repairs, furnishing the necessary material and labor at the advanced prices then 
prevailing; that the increased cost to the contractors of materials and labor for making 
said repairs was as follows: 

60 M feet long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, at $27 per M, the price of which, 
when orders were first placed in March, 1898, was $22.50 per M; differ- 
ence $4.50 per M; total difference $270. 00 

7 M rifed long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, § stock, $31 per M, the price of 
which when originally ordered in March, 1898, was $27 per M; differ- 
ence $4 per M; total difference 28. 00 

Increased cost for painting, calcimining, and floor polishing 325. 00 

Increased cost of metal ceiling _ 350. 00 

Increased cost of skilled labor, 540 days, at 25 cents per day 135. 00 

Total increase of cost 1, 108. 00 

Of said $1,108 the contractors paid, in the ordinary course of business, all of the 
foregoing items excepting that for the increased cost of metal ceiling, $350, which 
metal ceiling was furnished to them by the Penn Metal Ceiling and Roofing Company 
at a price of $350 greater than the price agreed upon at the time of the original esti- 
mates, but with the agreement that the contractors need not pay the said $350 unless 
they should receive the same from the Government. The market price of the metal 
ceiling used had actually advanced $350 between the time of the first estimates and 
the time when the ceiling was furnished. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. 
Tracy L. Jeffords, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

I. D. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden are citizens of the United States, and were 
such citizens at all the times hereinafter mentioned. D. B. Barbour resides at New- 
port News, Va., and Andrew P. Gladden resides at Clarksburg, W. Va. 

II. On the 21st day of March, 1898, a written contract was entered into between 
Maj. C. P. Miller, Quartermaster of the United States Army, on the one part, and 
E. R. Brown, D. E. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, doing business under the firm 
name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, whereby said firm of Brown, Barbour & Glad- 
den agreed, among other things, to make certain repairs to barracks, furnishing the 
necessary material and labor therefor, at Fort Monroe, in accordance with plains and 
specifications attached to the contract. The contract provided that work thereunder 
should commence on or before the 13th day of March, 1898, and be carried forward 
with reasonable dispatch, and the bath house and water-closets to be completed on 
or before the 30th day of June, 1898, and the repairs of barracks should be com- 
pleted ( n or before the 31st day of August, 1898. The contract price for the work 
was $10,838. The contract was approved bv the Acting Quartermaster-General May 
19, 1898. 

III. Before the commencement of the work under said contract said E. R. Brown 
withdrew from the said firm and transferred his interest in the firm's business to 
said C. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, and the work under said contract was 
all done arid materials furnished by said D B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, 
under the firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, but said E. R. Brown had no 
interest in the said work and materials and has no interest in this claim, as appears 
by the disclaimer under his hand and seal filed in this cause. 

IV. Immediately upon the Approval of said contract said D. B. Barbour and A. P. 
Gladden placed orders for the necessary material to perform the work thereunder, 
but before the work was actually begun Maj. C. P. Miller, quartermaster at Fort 
Monroe, notified said contractors that they could not proceed w T ith the repairs to 
said barracks, as it would have to be postponed on account of the indications of war 
and the need to use the barracks for the soldiers. Thereupon the contractors noti- 
fied said quartermaster that they had ordered the material for the work and asked 
how long the postponement" would be, in response to which they were informed by 
the quartermaster that the delay would be indefinite. 



328 AlaLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The contractors then asked that they be released from that part of the contract 
requiring them to make the repairs to the barracks, but the quartermaster informed 
them that if there were advances in the prices of materials and labor it would be the 
loss of the Government and not their loss, but that the work would have to be done. 
Accordingly the contractors proceeded with other work under the contract and left 
the work on the barracks untouched, and in the meantime notified their material 
men and subcontractors of the postponement and the reasons therefor; but the mate- 
rial men and subcontractors refused to hold their bids and contracts open and can- 
celed the same. 

Thereafter, in the latter part of June, 1898, Lieut. S. E. Allen, who had succeeded 
Maj. C. P. Miller as quartermaster at Fort Monroe, notified the contractors to pro- 
ceed with the work of repairing the barracks, the contractors informing him in writ- 
ing on the 25th day of June, 1898, of the understanding they had with Maj. C. P. 
Miller about the postponement of the repairs to the barracks, and that they could 
not proceed without having an understanding on the increased cost of labor and 
material. With their letter they submitted statements from their several material 
men and subcontractors and asked the quartermaster to make good to them the 
advances in prices of material and labor, informing him that they were ready to 
begin on receipt of his acceptance of the advance in prices. 

The quartermaster forwarded the contractors' said notice to the Quartermaster- 
General, who responded thereto in the following telegram: 

"Referring to your letter of the 27th instant, the contract is binding. Have the 
contractors begin the work and submit the question of equity later. It will receive 
due consideration." 

Said Lieutenant Allen read said telegram to the contractors and told them to pro- 
ceed and the Government would do whatever was right in equity. Thereupon the 
contractors proceeded with and completed the work, furnishing the necessary mate- 
rial and labor at the advanced prices then prevailing. 

V. The increased cost to the contractors of material and labor in making the 
repairs to said barracks as aforesaid were as follows: 

60 M feet long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, at $27 per M, the price of which, 
when orders were first placed in March, 1898, was $22.50 per M, difference 
$4.50 per M; total difference $270 

7 M rived long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, 5/4 stock, $31 per M, the price of 
which when originally ordered in March, 1898, was $27 per M, difference 
$4.00 per M; total increased cost : 28 

Increased cost for painting, calcimining, and floor polishing 325 

Increased cost of skilled labor, 540 days, at 25 cents per day 135 

Total increase of cost 758 

(Seven hundred and fifty-eight dollars.) 

VI. No payment has been made to the claimants on account of this claim. 

VII. The claim was presented by said D. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, 
under the firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, to the quartermaster at Fort 
Monroe, Va. , under date of July 5, 1898, before the work was actually begun upon 
the repairs to barracks. After the work was completed they pressed this claim 
before the office of the Quartermaster-General, who, under date of February 7, 1899, 
submitted a report to the Secretary of War recommending payment of $758 to said 
firm for increase in cost of material and labor. 

VIII. From the findings of fact in this case it appears that the claimants might 
have prosecuted their claim in the Federal courts for the recovery of the damages 
asked for, and the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations before the 
reference of same to this court, and no reason or excuse has been given for the 
delay. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. • « 

Test this 26th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 829 



TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, CHARLES 

TOWN, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11647. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Charles Town, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution 
of the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Charles 

Town, West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of Charles Town, West Virginia, the sum of six thousand dollars, for 
use, occupation, and damage to church property by the military forces of the 
United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charles Town, Jef- 
ferson County, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 
15, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
the spring of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
at Charles Town, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes 
at various times from said date until the close of the war, and during said 
occupancy damaged the said building; that the cost to restore the building to 
the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession 
was the sum of $S03.66, for which no payirient has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 28th day of 
January, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

■ 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Charles Town, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Govern- 
ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the 
rebellion. 

II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by 
proper authority, used and occupied for military purposes the church property 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charles Town, W. Va., and dam- 
aged the same. 

After the use, occupation, and damage to said church property the military 
forces of the Confederate army used and occupied said church building as a 
hospital for a period of less than a month. This was subsequent to the battle 
of Sharpsburg. 

The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that after this tempo- 
rary use by the Confederate military forces as a hospital the said church build- 
ing was again used and occupied by the military forces of the United States 
for a period of about three months. Said use and occupation, together with 
the damage thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was reasonably worth 
the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. A claim for repairs to said church was filed with the Quartermaster- 
General February 24, 1874, and by him rejected for the reason that there was 



330 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN" CLAIMS. 

" no law authorizing the settlement or investigation by this office of claim for 
repairs arising prior to the 1st of July, 1S72, and no appropriation out of which 
they could be paid if proved to be just." 

Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by resolution of the United 
States Senate, as hereinbefore stated. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, CLARKSBURG, 

W. VA. 

h I | 

[Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 11711. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Clarkshurg, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 4422, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksburg, West 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church South, of Clarksburg, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand one 
hundred dollars, for use and damage of property during the civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksburg, W. Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court April 17, 1905, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the 
spring of 1S62, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Clarksburg, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital, quarters, 
and other purposes from said date until the close of the war. That by reason 
of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary, and the reasonable 
rental value of said buildiug during the period it was so used and occupied, in- 
cluding the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which 
it was when said occupation commenced, was the sum of $2,100, for which no 
payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of 
October, 1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South. 
of Clarksburg, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession 
of the church building belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 
Clarksburg, W. Va., and used the same for hospital and other purposes from 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 331 

the spring of 1862 until the clase of the war and damaged the same. Such use 
and occupation, together with damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth 
the sum of one thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, POINT 
PLEASANT, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13006. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of Point Pleasant, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words : 

"[S. 7109, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Point 

Pleasant, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church South, of Point Pleasant, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand dol- 
lars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said 
church by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and 
filed a petition in which it is substantially averred that — 

During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took pos- 
session of the property of the claimant, and used and occupied the same; that 
by reason of such use and occupation much injury was done to said property, 
and the reasonable rental value of said property, during the time it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condi- 
tion as before said occupation, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment 
has been made ; that said property, consisting of a well-constructed brick church 
building, was occupied by United States military forces, part of the time as bar- 
racks, and part of the time as hospital from about — , 1863, until the end 

of the war, in 1865, resulting in very great injury to the property, requiring 
construction of new floor, repairs to windows, and woodwork, etc., bunks hav- 
ing been constructed beside the walls for soldiers' use. That the claimant has 
at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and 
has not, in any way, aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against 
the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of 
December, 1907. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Clark McKercher, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, 
of Point Pleasant, W. Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of 
the United States throughout the late civil war. 



332 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

i 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, occupied said church building and used the same for hospital pur- 
poses and as barracks. The reasonable rental value of said building, together 
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of one thousand 
and ninety dollars ($1,090), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Gov- 
ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by 
resolution of the United States Senate, as- aforesaid, and no reason is given why 
the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed, or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claim for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 6, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of January, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, ST. ALBANS, 

W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12449. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, of St. Albans, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. 

Albans, W. Va. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church South, of St. Albans, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand 
dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court July 5, 1906, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the 
month of February, 1862, the military forces of the United States under com- 
mand of Gen. J. T. L. Lightburn took possession of the church building of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., and used and occupied 
the same for military purposes, and that other commands of the United States 
Army also used and occupied the said building, covering a period of continuous 
occupation of over three years from said date. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so 
occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition 
in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the 
sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of 
October, 1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. ■ 

I. It appears from the evidence that the M. E. Church South, of St. Albans, 
W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the late civil war. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 333 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., and used and 
occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to 
restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said mili- 
tary forces took possession, was the sum of fourteen hundred dollars ($1,400), 
for which no payment appears to have been made. 

III. The claim was never presented to any Department of the Government 
prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 29, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH, MIDDLEWAY, 

W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11642. Trustees of the Methodist Protes- 
tant Church at Middleway, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

" [S. 1669, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Protestant Church of Middleway, 

West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Protestant 
Church of Middleway, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand five hundred 
dollars, for use, occupation, and damage to church buildings by the military 
forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Methodist Protestant Church of Middleway, W. Va., ap- 
peared and filed their petition in this court July 23, 1904, in which they make 
the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of said Methodist Protestant Church and used and occupied the same 
at various times during said period for hospital, quarters, and other purposes ; 
that by reason of such occupancy the building was greatly damaged, and the 
reasonable rental value thereof during said period, including the repairs neces- 
sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the 
troops took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,500. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
February, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., appeared for the defense and protection 
of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering tbe briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Protestant Church of 
Middleway, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States during the war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the Methodist 
Protestant Church at Middleway, W. Va., and used and occupied the same 



334 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

for hospital, quarters, and other purposes. By reason of such occupancy the 
church building was damaged, and the reasonable rental value thereof during 
the time it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the build- 
ing to the condition in which it was at the time the troops took possession of 
the same, was the sum of eight hundred and twenty-five dollars ($825). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 

Filed March 20, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of June, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CLARKSBURG, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13025. Trustees of Presbyterian Church of Clarks- 
burg, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the 
military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of 
March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- 
ing words: 

" [S. 7158, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Clarksburg, West 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Clarksburg, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in 
full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church 
by United States military forces during the civil war." 

The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and 
filed their petition in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States 
took possession of the property of said claimants, consisting of a well-con- 
structed brick church building, with gallery, and occupied the same for military 
purposes, beginning about 1862, and their occupation continuing, at intervals, 
throughout the entire war, and during said occupation greatly injured the 
same ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, 
including the repairs necessary to restore the property to as good condition as 
before the occupation, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been 
made; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, and has not, in any way, voluntarily aided, 
abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
January, 1908. 

Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Clarksburg, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to 
the Government of the United States. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and 
used and occupied the same at different times for quarters for troops and dam- 
aged the same. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 335 

damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of 
five hundred and twenty-five dollars ($525), no part of which appears to have 
been paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason is 
given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which 
shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, MOOREFIELD, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11682. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Moorefield, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 3006, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Hardy County, West 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America m Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Hardy County, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use and 
occupation of and damage to church building by the military forces of the 
United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Moorefield, Hardy County, W. Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court October 29, 1904, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about 
September, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the said Presbyterian Church and 
used the same for military purposes until about the close of the war in 1865. 

That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable 
rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including 
the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was 
when said military authorities first took possession of the same, was the sum 
of three thousand dollars, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of 
January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the 
Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Moorefield, 
W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war of the rebellion. 



336 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of the Presbyterian Church, of Moorefield, Hardy County, State of West Vir- 
ginia, and used the same for military purposes from September, 1862, until 
about the close of the war. By reason of such occupancy repairs were neces- 
sary, and the reasonable rental value of said church building during the period 
it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to 
the condition in which it was when taken possession of, was the sum of four- 
teen hundred and thirty dollars ($1,430), for which no payment appears to 
have been made. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 16, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, SPRINGFIELD, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12440. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Springfield, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military 
forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, 
the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : 

" [S. 1316, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Springfield, West 

Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian 
Church of Springfield, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred 
dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court on the 18th day of February, 1907, and 
filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
December, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church at Springfield, 
Hampshire County, W. Va., and used and occupied the same at various times 
from said date until the close of the war for quarters, hospital, guardhouse, 
and finally as a stable. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so 
occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition 
in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum 
of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of 
January, 1908, 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Presbyterian Church of Springfield, W. Va., as an organization was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and 
used and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes, and damaged the 
same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with 
the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 337 

the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), no part of which appears to have been 
paid. 

III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- 
tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given 
why the bar or any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be 
claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal 
remedy. 

By the Cotjbt. 

Filed February 3, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, OF SUMMERSVILLE, 

W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11645. Trustees of St. John's Catholic Church, of 
Summersville, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act : 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, 

West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint John's Catholic 
Church, of Summersville, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for 
use and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States 
during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of St. John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, W. Va., ap- 
peared and filed their petition in this court September 7, 1905, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about 
November, 1861, the military forces of the United States, under command of 
General Crook, took possession of the church building of St. John's Catholic 
Church, at Summersville, W. Va., and used and occupied the said building for 
a period of about two years. That the reasonable rental value of said building 
during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces 
took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has 
been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the 
Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. John's Catholic Church, of Sum- 
mersville, W. Va., was loyal to the Government of the United States during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of St. John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, W. Va., and used and occupied 
the same at different times for a period of about two years. The reasonable 
rental value of said building during the period it was occupied, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in- which it was at 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 22 



338 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of one thousand 
and fifty dollars ($1,050), for which no payment appears to have been made. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 12, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 23d day of February, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHN EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF CHARLESTON, 

W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12528. Trustees of St. John's Episcopal Church, at 
Charleston, W. Va., v. United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause was referred to this court by resolution 
of the United States Senate June 18, 1906, under the act of March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act. The bill relating thereto reads as follows : 

"A BILL For the relief of Saint John's Episcopal Church, of Charleston, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is 
hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, to the proper officer or officers of Saint John's Episcopal 
Church, of Charleston, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand five hundred 
and fifty-two dollars and fifty cents, for use and occupation of the church build- 
ing by United States troops during the years eighteen hundred and sixty-one to 
eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and for damages to the church building, fix- 
tures, and furniture by reason of its occupancy by said troops." 

The claimant appeared and filed its petition herein September 12, 1906, in 
which it is averred, substantially, that the board of trustees of the St. John 
Episcopal Church, of Charleston, W. Va., is a corporate body, existing under the 
laws of the State of West Virginia ; that during the war for the suppression of 
the rebellion the said church was loyal to the United States and did not give any 
aid or comfort to the rebellion ; that during the years 1861 to 1865, both inclu- 
sive, the said building was occupied and used by the military authorities of the. 
United States for a period of four years ; and while it was so occupied, and by 
reason thereof, its fixtures and furniture were damaged by the United States 
troops ; and that the reasonable rental value of said house of worship for said 
four years was $2,000, and the actual cost of repairing the said damage done to 
the building, fixtures, and furniture made necessary by the said troops was 
$1,552.50, and there is now due the church from the United States the sum of 
$3,552.50. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of 
January, 1907. 

Messrs. Crosthwaite and Colladay appeared for the claimant, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. St. John Episcopal Church, at Charleston, W. Va., as a church was loyal 
to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression 
of the rebellion. 

II. In July, 1861, the military forces of the United States took possession of 
the church building described in the petition and occupied the same as and for 
a barracks for quartermaster's supplies until the spring of 1865, removing there- 
from the pews and pulpit or chancel and otherwise damaging the building and 
the furniture therein. 

The reasonable rental value of said building during the period of occupancy, 
together with the damage thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was 
at the time and place the sum of eighteen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,850), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. It appears that a claim for a portion of this property in the sum of $1,021, 
representing the cost of placing pews, damage to organ, and loss of reading desk,, 
communion table, and other furniture, was presented to the Quartermaster- 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 339 

General some time in the year 1880, and was by that official disallowed for want 
of jurisdiction. No other action seems to have been taken toward the collection 
of the claim until its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under 
resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHN'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, HAR- 
PERS FERRY, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11644. Trustees of St. John's Protestant 
Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 1672, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of 
Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- 
ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint John's Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; the sum of three thousand dol- 
lars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the 
United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, 
W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 29, 1904, in 
which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, at Harpers Ferry, W. Va., 
and used and occupied the same for military purposes. That by reason of such 
occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to 
restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said military 
authorities first took possession of the same, was the sum of $3,000, for which 
no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of 
April, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the St. John's Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the church building of 
the St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., Avas 
taken, possession of by the military forces of the United States, under proper 
authority, during the year 1862, who used and damaged the same. The reason- 
able rental value and cost of repairs incident to such use a#d occupation were 
reasonably worth the sum of one thousand seven hundred dollars ($1,700). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Cotjkt. 
Filed April 10, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John^Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



340 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WEBSTER, 

W. YA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12391. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of Webster, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Webster, 

West Virginia. 

''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and 
he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury 
not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
at Webster, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for 
use and destruction of their church property by the military forces df the 
United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va., appeared 
and filed their petition in this court September 5, 1906, in which they make 
The following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and from the 
spring of 1861 to the spring of 1865, various detachments of the United States 
Army, consisting of the Sixth West Virginia and Eighty-seventh Pennsylvania 
regiments of Infantry and other regiments, used and occupied, to the exclusion 
of the congregation, the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
of Webster, W. Va. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was 
so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- 
dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was 
the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of 
January, 1906. 

G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va., as a church, was 
loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the 
suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- 
ing of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va., and used the same 
from time to time for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said 
building during the period so occupied, together with the damage in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), 
no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. The foregoing claim was not presented to any department of the Govern- 
ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by 
resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 28, 1907. 
A true copy. i 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 
[seat,.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 341 

TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BEVERLY, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11681. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Beverly, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the 
United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act: 

" [S. 3005, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, West 

Virginia. 

"Be .it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church 
of Beverly, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use of and dam- 
age to their church property by the military forces of the United States during 
the late war of the rebellion." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, W. Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court September 14, 1904, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of the said Presbyterian Church, at Beverly, W. Va., and used and occu- 
pied the same as a commissary storehouse, guardhouse, and for other purposes, 
from 1861 to 1S63 ; that said building was a frame structure, about 33 by 46 
feet, and in good state of repair at the time the United States forces took pos- 
session of the same; that by reason of such occupancy the building was so badly 
damaged that it could not be repaired and was a total loss to the congregation ; 
tbat said building was reasonably worth at the time the United States forces 
took possession the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of 
January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACTS. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, 
W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the late war of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building 
of the Presbyterian Church, at Beverly, W. Va., and used and occupied the same 
for military purposes from 1861 to 1863. The reasonable rental value of said 
church building during said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore 
the building to the same condition in which it was when said occupation com- 
menced, was the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment 
appears to have been made. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed January 16, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of February, 1905. 
[seal.] ' John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



342 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF PETERSBURG, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11053. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church, 
of Petersburg, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1903, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act: 

"[S. 4209, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Petersburg, West 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the 
Presbyterian Church at Petersburg, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand 
dollars, in full compensation for church edifice belonging to said congregation 
and destroyed by the Union Army during the late civil war." 

The trustees of the Presbyterian Church, of Petersburg, W. Va., appeared and 
filed their petition in this court November 25, 1904, in which they make the 
following allegations : 

That in the spring of 1863 the military forces of the United States under 
command of General Milroy took possession of the church building of che Pres- 
byterian Church at Petersburg, W. Va., and used the same as a commissary 
storehouse and continued to use the same until the fall of 1863, when they 
destroyed the said building by fire in order to prevent the supplies stored therein 
from falling into the hands of the Confederate forces. That said building was 
constructed of brick, was in a good state of repair, and reasonably worth at the 
time of its destruction, as aforesaid, the sum of $3,000. That after the destruc- 
tion of the said building, as aforesaid, the brick contained therein were used by 
the military forces of the United States for building chimneys, ovens, and for 
other purposes. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of 
December, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the 
Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS -OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church, of Petersburg, 
W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- 
out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, under proper authority, took possession of, occupied, and later 
destroyed the church building belonging to the Presbyterian Church, of Peters- 
burg, W. Va., and used the materials therein contained, which materials were 
reasonably worth the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 22, 1904. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of January, 1905. 
[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 343 

TRUSTEES OF ZION PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF CHARLES 

TOWN, W. VA. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12442. Trustees of Zion Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of 
the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known 
as the Tucker Act. 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles 

Town, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees, of Zion Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, of Charles Town, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand dol- 
lars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of 
the United States during the late civil war." 

The trustees of Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., 
appeared and filed their petition in this court August 28, 1906, in which they 
make the following allegations : 

That during the late civil war, and on or about the fall of 1863, the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of Zion Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., and used and occupied the 
same for hospital purposes until the close of the war. That the reasonable 
rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the 
repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the 
time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,000, for which 
no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of 
January, 1907. 

G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
•of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Zion Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., was, as a church, loyal to the 
Government of the United States. 

' II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, for the use of the army, took possession of the building belonging to 
the said Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., and occu- 
pied the same for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said build- 
ing, together with the damages incident to said occupation in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, was the sum of five hundred and forty dollars ($540), for which 
no payment appears to have been made. 

III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any officer or 
Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and ref- 
erence to this court as aforesaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



344 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF ST. MARK'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH, OF ST. ALBANS, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11622. Wardens and vestrymen of St. Mark's 
Protestant Episcopal Church, of St. Albans, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of 
the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, 
known as the Tucker Act : 

"£S. 757, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of 
Saint Albans, West Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint Mark's Protestant 
Episcopal Church, of Saint Albans, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand 
five hundred and sixty-five dollars, for use of and damage to church building 
by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the re- 
bellion." 

The wardens and vestrymen of St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of 
St. Albans, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 
22, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : 

That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military 
forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church 
building of the said St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church at St. Albans, 
W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes for a period of 
about three years. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, 
and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said 
occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condi- 
tion in which it was when the military authorities took possession of the same, 
was the sum of $2,550, for which no payment has been made. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of 
January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- 
ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. It appears from the evidence that St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, 
of St. Albans, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of 
the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession 
of the church buildings belonging to the St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal 
Church, of St. Albans, W. Va., and used the same for military purposes for a 
period of about three years. Such use and occupation, including the damages 
incident thereto during said period, were reasonably worth the sum of two 
thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 23, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 3d day of February, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 345 

TRUSTEES OF TRINITY PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, MARTINS- 
BURG, W. VA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12899. Trustees of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church of 
Martinsburg, W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces 
of the United States during the late civil war. On the 27th day of April, 1904, the 
United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: 

" [S. 3200, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 
"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Trinity Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of RepresentaVves of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 
ized and directed to pay, out of any money in £he Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
to the trustees of the Trinity Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, the 
sum of one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, in full satisfaction for the use of 
and occupation of said church for hospital purposes by the Federal troops from Decem- 
ber first, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, to May first, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
five, at the rate of fifty dollars per month." 

On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill 
in the following words: 

" [S, 5180, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, West 

Virginia. 

"Be it enacted by the Senate and. House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is 
hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
wise appropriated, to the trustees of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Chnrch, of Mar- 
tinsburg, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand four hundred and ninety-four 
dollars and fifty-three cents, on account of repairs rendered necessary to their church 
building by reason of the occupation of the same by the military forces of the United 
States during the late civil war." 

The claimants appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed their petition, in 
which it is substantially averred: 

That on or about June, 1861, the military forces of the United States, under com- 
mand of General Patterson, took possession of the church building of Trinity Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for 
hospital purposes; that thereafter different other commands of the United States, 
Army continued to use and occupy the said building until the close of the war; that 
by reason of such occupancy the building was very much damaged, and the pews, 
pulpit, furniture, and fixtures were destroyed. 

That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- 
pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building and contents to the con- 
dition in which they were at the time the said military forces took possession, was the 
sum of $2,944.53, no part of which has ever been paid. 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 25th day of February 
1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The conrt, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by 
the defendants, except the report of the Treasury Department relative to the pre- 
sentation of a claim for damages, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 
counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, W. Va., as a church, 
was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 

II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, 
took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied 



346 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the same for hospital purposes and barracks for a period of about three years and dam- 
aged the same. The reasonable rental value of said period, together with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of thirteen hundred 
and forty dollars ($1,340), no part of which appears to have been paid. 

III. A claim by the claimant church herein was filed in the Treasury Department 
for damages, which claim was disallowed January 20, 1880, by the accounting officers 
because they had no jurisdiction over the same. Thereafter the United States Senate, 
by resolution, referred to the court April 27, 1904, a claim for rent, and on March 2, 
1907, a claim for damages. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the 
claims were not earlier presented. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 25, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of March, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

COUNTY COURT OF BERKELEY COUNTY, W. VA. 

T Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11144. The County Court of Berkeley County, 
W. Va., v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The following bill was referred to the court on the 2d day of March, 1903, 
by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : 

"IS. 6760, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session.] 

"A BILL For the relief of the county court of Berkeley County, West Virginia. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the county court of Berkeley County, 
West Virginia, the sum of thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirty-three 
dollars and thirty-three cents, for the use and occupation of and damage to the 
court-house and jail property in said county by the military forces of the 
United States during the late war of the rebellion." 

The claimant appeared in this court and filed its petition on the 26th day of 
March, 1903, in which it makes the following allegations : 

That it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of West 
Virginia ; that by virtue of the laws of said State said corporation is the owner 
of and vested of the real and personal estate, rights, interests, and privileges 
in relation to the real or personal estate, claims, and rights of action hereto- 
fore or now belonging to said county of Berkeley ; that during the late war 
for the suppression of the rebellion said corporation was the owner of certain 
real estate situate in said county and upon which was erected certain buildings, 
the property of said corporation, consisting of a court-house, jail, and other 
buildings ; that said property was taken possession of by the military forces 
of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army during 
said period, and that the United States is justly indebted to said corporation 
as follows: 

Rent of court-house, three years and four months, at $2,200 per year_ $7, 333. 33 
Rent of jail property, consisting of jail building and dwelling house, 

three years and four months, at $800 per year 2, 666. 66 

Repairs to court-house 733. 33 

Repairs to jail building 3, 000. 00 

Total 13, 733. 32 

(First occupied July 2, 1861, by General Patterson's command, and after that 
date by various commands of the United States Army.) 

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of 
May, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by W. W. Scott, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the 
interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 347 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, making the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The county of Berkeley at the beginning of the civil war was a part of the 
State of Virginia, which was declared in insurrection by the President by a 
proclamation August 16, 1861. It was among the excepted counties which 
were not declared in insurrection by the President's proclamation January 1, 
1863. It was subsequently, on the 5th of August, 1S63, admitted to and became 
a part of the State of West Virginia. Apart from the county being technically 
a part of the State of Virginia it always maintained a loyal adherence to the 
Union and was controlled by loyal men. (3 W. Va. Court of Appeals P., 461.) 

II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces 
of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took, used, 
and occupied for a period of about two years and ten months the court-house 
and jail of Berkeley County, W. Va., and damaged the same. Such use and 
occupation of and damage to said property were reasonably worth the sum of 
seven thousand nine hunded and twenty dollars ($7,920). 

No payment appears to have been made therefor. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1905. 
A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of June, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



Difference Between Shore and Sea Pay. 

CALIFORNIA. 

HANNAH M. COON. 

{Court of Claims. Hannah M. Coon, widow (remarried) of Edward B. Bingham, deceased, v. The 
United States. Congressional, No. 10942-473.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 tf. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $477.39. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
riling of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of $168.90, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 
1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $308.49. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Sonoma, 
in the State of California, and is the widow (remarried) of Edward B. Bingham, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

349 



350 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $477.39; the amount paid claimant was $168.90; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains 
unpaid, is $308.49 (three hundred and eight dollars and forty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EMILY V. CUTTS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 535. Emily V. Cutts, widow of Richard M. Cutts 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving an an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
penate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
Sroceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress, approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $287.33. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
or such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, 
the sum of $36.37, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and 
to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $250.96. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT.- 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Mare Island, in the 
State of California, and is the widow of Richard M. Cutts, deceased, whose claim, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$287.33; the amount paid claimant was $36.37; the amount suspended under the 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 351 

proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (Stat. L.), and which still 
remains unpaid, is $250.96 (two hundred and fifty dollars and ninety-six cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANCENIA H. DALE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 526. Francenia H. Dale, widow of Frank C. Dale, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serivng as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $61.64. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In 
appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the fol- 
lowing proviso: 

' 'That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $61.64. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the'county'of Merced, 
in the State of California, and is the widow of Frank C. Dale, deceased, whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$61.64; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $61.64 (sixty-one dollars and 
sixty-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



352 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

• MARCUS D. HYDE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 475. Marcus D. Hyde v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $225.98. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $225.98. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Ala- 
meda, in the State of California, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$225.98; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, 
is $225.98 (two hundred and twenty-five dollars and ninety-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 353 

LOUISA I. LAINE. 

[ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—474. Louisa I. Laine, widow of Richard W. Laine, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. 
A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $173.29. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
pe paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17,1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong 
v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due the sum of $47.74, being the amount which accrued subsequent 
to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $125.55. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of San 
Francisco, in the State of California, and is the widow of Richard W. Laine, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$173.29, the amount paid claimant was $47.74, the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889., and which still remains unpaid, is 
$125.55 (one hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 23 



354 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

NICHOLAS PRATT. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 115. Nicholas Pratt v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, 
as mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to 
the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 
5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel,. esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1352.54. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive 
Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriation for such 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one 
of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. 

Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the same decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $352.54. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the' same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof, 
and a resident of the State of California, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant under said decision was $352.54; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and fifty-two dollars and fifty-four cents 
($352.54). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 355 

COLORADO. 

JOSEPHINE A. BUELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10942—684. Josephine A. Buell, widow of James W. Buell, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States^ 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S. , 656), the sum thus allowed being $97.61. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by t\e accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $97.61. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Jeffer- 
son, in the State of Colorado, and is the widow of James W. Buell, whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$97.61; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $97.61 (ninety-seven dollars and 
sixty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims.. 



356 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

JAMES THAYER. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093-17. James Thayer v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing or other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 
lution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801 for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

That he served as a gunner in the United States Navy on the receiving ships New 
Hampshire and Worcester, and that during the period of such service he received shore 
pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances, to which he is entitled under 
the decision of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). 

That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $184.95, is due 
claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 
1890. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

I. The claimant is a,citizen of the United States and a resident of Crested Butte. 
Colo., and is the identical person who served as a gunner on the receiving ships New 
Hampshire and Worcester from July 2, 1875, to February 11, 1876. 

For said service claimant has been paid the shore pay and allowances of a gunner, 
and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for 
the difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, and sea pay 
and allowances, which he claims to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had 
not Congress prohibited the payment of same. 

II. During the time claimant was attached to said receiving ships as aforesaid, he 
had, or was required to have, his quarters and to mess on board said vessels, and was 
required to wear his uniform, and was not permitted by the rules of the service to 
live with his family. 

III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of a gunner from July 2, 
1875, to February 11, 1876, and the amount which claimant has received for his serv- 
ice during that period is one hundred and eighty-four dollars and ninety-five cents 
($184.95), no part of which has been paid. 

By the Couet. 
Filed February 20, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of February, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CONNECTICUT. 

ELIZABETH F. CURTIS, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12013. Elizabeth F. Curtis, administratrix de bonis non, v. 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, William Barrymore, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, 
was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, refer- 
ring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 357 

This case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of June, A. D. 1906, 
and Eugene A. Jones, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed for Navy pay being 
1603.57. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in 
House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appro- 
priating for said allowance (and others of like character) , Congress made the following 
proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 
1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision of the 
case of Strong v. United States and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent on account of navy 
pay, out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued 
subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The account- 
ing officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 
1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision of the 
case of Strong v. United States had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same 
was $603.57. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury Department, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OP PACTS. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and the duly appointed administratrix 
c. t. a. de bonis non of the estate of William Barrymore, deceased; that said decedent 
was an officer in the Navy of the United States and a resident of the State of Connecti- 
cut and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant for navy pay by the accounting officers under 
said decision was $603.57; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- 
gress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is six hundred and three 
dollars and fifty-seven cents ($603.57). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HARRIET B. GAYLORD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—548. Harriet B. Gaylord, sister of Dudley E. Taylor, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 



358 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $186.35. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of $43.46, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $142.89. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New 
Haven, in the State of Connecticut, and is the sister of Dudley E. Taylor, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$186.35; the amount paid claimant was $43.46; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, 
is $142.89 (one hundred and forty-two dollars and eighty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clcrlt Court of Claims. 

GIDEON E. HOLLOWAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — S84. Gideon E. Holloway, son of Gideon E. Holloway, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 359 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1139.50. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $139.50. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New 
London, in the State of Connecticut, and is the son of Gideon E. Hollo way, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$139.50; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $139.50 (one hundred and thirty-nine 
dollars and fifty cents). 

By the Coukt. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copv of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JULIUS G. RATHBONE, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1094 — 2560. Julius G. Rathbone administrator of George C. 

Campbell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S. , 656), the sum thus allowed being $230.19. This action 



360 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

was reported to Congress by the Secretary of trie Treasury for appropriation. In appro- 
priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following 
proviso: B£| 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officersjas 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was 1230.17. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court,, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following] 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Hart- 
ford, in the State of Connecticut, and is the administrator of George C. Campbell, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. » 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$230.19; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and thirty dollars 
and nineteen cents ($230.19). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

DELAWARE. 

GEORGE R. GRAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—488. George R. Gray v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings, and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $490.74. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 



ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 361 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $490.74. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
aftef considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

1 FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New- 
castle in the State of Delaware, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
.74; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $490.74 (four hundred and 
ninety dollars and seventy-four cents.) 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

OTWAY C. BERRYMAN AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—528. Otway C. and William M. Berryman, Alice B. Brom- 
well, Columbia N. Payne, children of O. H. Berryman, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $67.25. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable, 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 



362 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $67.25. / 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of Washington, in 
the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, and are the children of O. H. Berryman, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $67.25; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $67.25 (sixty-seven dollars 
and twenty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A time copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

JOHN C. BOYD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10492—466. John C. Boyd v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant, John C. Boyd, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, to wit, a surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was 
transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of December, 1905. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $238.62. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate 
Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating 
for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " (Act approved March 2, 1899.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 363 

six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $238.62. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Washing- 
ton, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$238.62; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1899, and which still remains unpaid is $238.62 (two hundred and thirty- 
eight dollars and sixty-two cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 18, 1905. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1906. 

[seal. J John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN B. BRIGGS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—517. John B. Briggs v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the fol owing allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $16.44. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $16.44. 



364 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$16.44; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $16.44 (sixteen dollar? and forty- 
four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, . 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ROBERDEAU BUCHANAN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11916. Roberdeau Buchanan, administrator de bonis non of 
McKean Buchanan, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE, 

The claim in the above-mentioned case for difference between sea pay and shore 
duty pay while the late McKean Buchanan was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, to wit, a paymaster upon receiving and other ships belonging to 
the Navy, was transmitted to the court by the Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of May, 1906. 

Reginald S. Huidekoper appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,115.06. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Execu- 
tive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. L., 
934.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
' than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due the sum of $260.06, being the allowance for rations. And at 
the desire of the accounting officers of the Treasury Department Mrs. F. Selina 
Buchanan, widow of the late McKean Buchanan, took out letters of administration in 
the probate court of Washington upon this portion of the estate of her husband, where- 
upon the accounting officers of the Treasury Department allowed the whole claim of 
$1,115.06 to her in her name and paid to her the sum of $260.06, being the allowance 
for rations, upon which no prohibition of payment had been placed by Congress. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 365 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
for rations, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision 
in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, 
was $855. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Washing- 
ton, D. C, and the said McKean Buchanan is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$1,115.06; the amount paid claimant was $260.06; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. L., 934), and which still 
remains unpaid is $855 (eight hundred and fifty-five dollars). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the finding of facts as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN D. CAHILL, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—520. John D. Cahill, administrator of Dennis Twiggs, 

deceased, v . The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $126.58. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohib- 
ited the payment of the same was $126.58. 



366 ALLOWANCE OP OEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the nephew of Dennis Twiggs, deceased, whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$126.58; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is $126.58 (one hundred and twenty- 
six dollars and fifty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY H. CORBETT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-513. Mary H. Corbett, granddaughter of Samuel Howard 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant 's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $370.13. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the samenvas $370.13. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 367 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the granddaughter of Samuel Howard, deceased, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$370.13; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $370.13 (three hundred and 
seventy dollars and thirteen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LOUISA A. CROSBY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 1 C. F. C. Louisa A. Crosby, widow of Pierce Crosby 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's intestate was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 
5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. 

Charles W. Clagett, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegation: That 
she s the widow of Pierce Crosby, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed- by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $477.17. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. (House Ex. Doc. 59, 50th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 57-63.) In appropriating for 
said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's intestate out of said 
appropriation, the sum of $208, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 
16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's intestate would have been en- 
titled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same was $477.17. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso , and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 



368 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Co- 
lumbia, and is the widow of Pierce Crosby, deceased, whose claim under the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as 
alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$477.17; the amount paid claimant was $208; the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which, still remains unpaid, 
is $269.17 (two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and seventeen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 24th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SAMUEL CROSS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-464. Samuel Cross v. the United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protecton of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $26.85. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropri- 
ation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $26.85. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments o*f counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 369 

the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the acc-uunting officers under said decision was 
$26.85; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid 
is $26.85 (twenty-six dollars and eighty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] -7; John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THOMAS T. DIDIER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. 20. Thomas T. Didier and Frederick W. Didier, 
heirs of Frederick B. Didier, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimants' deceased father, Frederick B. Didier, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, as paymaster's clerk upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th 
day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $129.30. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive 
Document 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, 
the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and 
to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimants would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States v. Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $129.30. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OP PACTS. 

^Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person 
whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 24 



370 ' ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found due claimants' decedent by the accounting officers under said 
decision was $129.30; the amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $129.30 (one hundred and twenty -nine dollars and 
thirty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 5, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM S. DIXON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & F. 157. William S. Dixon v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, as 
assistant surgeon — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of 'the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of November, 1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $248.77. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- 
ment No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first session. In appropriating for such allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any of these claims 
should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the. date of filing the petition 
in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of 
allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same decision in the 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum 
of $112.33, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of same, was $136.44. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The -court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following , 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and is an officer in the Navy thereof, and 
a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim, under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for, as alleged in the petition. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 371 

The amount found due claimant under said decision was $248.77; the amount paid 
claimant was $112.33; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $136.44 (one hundred and 
thirty-six dollars and forty-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EDWARD J. DORN. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & F., No. 51. Edward J. Dorn v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant, Edward J. Dorn, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, to wit, an ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was 
transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $202.19. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive 
Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allow- 
ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date-on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum 
of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $202.19. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof 
and a resident of the District of Columbia and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 



372 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
119; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $202.19 (two hundred and two 
dollars and nineteen cents) . 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

KATE R. EMMERICH AND PARTHENIA E. ALTEMUS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 467. Kate R. Emmerich, Parthenia E. Altemus, sisters of 
Charles F. Emmerich, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's brother was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegation: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury, Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in .the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $452.87. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $452.87. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

"" FINDINGS OP PACT, 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of Washington, D. C, 
and are the sisters of Charles F. Emmerich, whose claim under the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was 
adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as 
alleged in the petition. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 873 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$452.87; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid, is $452.87 (four hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty-seven cents). 

By the Court 

Filed April 16, 1906 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

JAMES M. FLINT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 103. James M. Flint v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, 
as mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to 
the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 
5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $193.30. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive 
Document JNo. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for such 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one 
of these claims should be paid Avhich accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. 

Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $193.30. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof 
and a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant under said decision was $193.30; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and ninety-three dollars and thirty cents 
($193.30). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 29th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



374 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS, 

MARINA B. HARDING. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 587. Marina B. Harding, widow (remarried) of,Henry O. 
Handy, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $702.47. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims.. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due and then paid to claimant' s decedent out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of $507.24, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $195.23. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, piirsuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the widow (remarried) of Henry O. Handy, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$702.47; amount paid claimant was $507.24; amount suspended under the proviso to 
the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is 
$195.23 (one hundred and ninety-five dollars and twenty -three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact a? ^led by the court. 

Test this 2M day o* October, 1906. 

[seal.1 John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAHsT CLAIMS. 375 

ISAAC HAZLETT. 

[Court of Claims. No. 12058, Congressional. Isaac Hazlett v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a 
lieutenant-commander upon receiving ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of April, 1906. 

Mr. Bernard P. Mimmack appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this coiut and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., p. 656), the sum thus allowed being $131.51 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 
tive Document No. 159, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of the said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said provision, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the said petition in the case Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of 
nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference of pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was §131.51. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and is an officer in the Navy thereof on 
the retired list; that he is a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$131.51. The amount paid claimant was nothing. The amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid is $131.51 (one hundred and thirty -one dollars and fifty-one cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 9, 1906. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



376 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CUMBERLAND G. HERNDON. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & F. No. 57. Cumberland G. Herndon v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant, Cumberland G. Herndon, was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon upon receiving and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolutions on the 4th day 
of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
Strong i>. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $442.84. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Ex- 
ecutive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for 
said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which^he judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropria- 
tion the sum of 1238.19, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was 1204.65. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following ist.Siil 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and he was an officer in the Navy thereof 
and a resident of the District of Columbia and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$442.84, the amount paid claimant was $238.19, and the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still re- 
mains unpaid, is $204.65 (two hundred and four dollars and sixty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 377 

JOHN HUBBARD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—509. John Hubbard v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate res- 
olution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $107.34. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation 
the sum of $12, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to 
which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $95.34. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$107.34; the amount paid claimant was $12; the amount suspended under the proviso 
to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is 
$95.34 (ninety-five dollars and thirty-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



378 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 515. Alice S. Jordan, widow of John W. Jordan, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Penne baker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1340.75. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria - 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adapted by the accounting offi- 
cers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of $88.96, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
i July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $251.79. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the widow of John W. Jordan, deceased, whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$340.75; the amount paid claimant was $88.96; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, 
is $251.79 (two hundred and fifty-one dollars and seventy-nine cents.) 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 379 

BELLA A. LEACH. 

[Court of Clairas. Congressional, No. 10942-485. Bella A. Leach, widow of Bojnton Leach, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $83.83. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said, claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohib- 
ited the payment of the same, was $83.83. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the widow of Boynton Leach, deceased, whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States i>. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$83.83; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $88.83 (eighty-three dollars and 
eighty-three cents). ' 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. • 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] % John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



380 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

FLORENCE MURRAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-482. Florence Murray, widow of .Alexander Murray 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay- 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceed- 
ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906 . Messrs. 
Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van 
Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U- S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $19.80. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the 
basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong 
v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $19.80. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. • 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the widow of Alexander Murray, whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S. 
656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$19.80, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $19.80 (nineteen dollars and 
eighty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HENRIETTA M. D. OLIPHANT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 606. Henrietta M. D. Oliphant, widow (remarried) of 
Henry J. Hunt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 381 

upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949. for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury- 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $95.89. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent, out of 
said appropriation, the sum of $66.85, being the amount which accrued subsequent 
to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same, was $29.04. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Colum- 
bia, and is the widow (remarried) of Henry J. Hunt, deceased, whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$95.89; the amount paid claimant was $66.85; the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid 
is $29.04 (twenty-nine dollars and four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

CHRISTINE I. OWEN AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10942—695. Christine I. Owen, Kathleen D. Owen, Albert T. 
Owen, and Alfred C. Owen, children of Alfred M. Owen, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 



382 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegation: That 
they are the children of Alfred M. Owen, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $175.89. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886. the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been en- 
titled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same, was $175.89. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of 'the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously re- 
fused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP TACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the city of Wash- 
ington, in the District of Columbia, and are the children of Alferd M. Owen, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $175.89; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $175.89 (one hundred and 
seventy-five dollars and eighty-nine cents) . 

By the Court. 

Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHRISTIANA C. QUEEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 523. Christiana C. Queeri, widow of W. W. Q.ueen, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case waB brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 383 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., bis assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $49.25. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $49.25. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of consul on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the widow of W. W. Queen, deceased, whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$49.25; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $49.25 (forty-nine dollars and 
twenty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] • John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

PRESLEY M. RIXEY. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—647. Presley M. Rixey v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegation: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 



384 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. 

Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $159.59 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of 
$36.30, being the amount which accrued subsequently to July 16, 1880, and to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $123.29. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Colum- 
bia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$159.59; the amount paid claimant was $36.30; the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is 
$123.29 (one hundred and twenty-three dollars and twenty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 19, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WILLIAM F. SWINBURNE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—531. William T. Swinburne v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was" allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $36.16._ This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 385 

filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same was $36.16. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$36.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $36.16 (thirty-six dollars and six- 
teen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. • 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FREDERICK E. UPTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—583. Frederick E. Upton v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the* Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United State* (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being |134.79. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 25 



386 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $134.79. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$134.79; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $134.79 (one hundred and thirty- 
four dollars and seventy-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

FLORIDA. 

CATHERINE DELAP, WIDOW OF GEORGE DELAP. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-C. & F. No. 181. Catherine Delap, widow of George 
Delap, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst the claimant's husband, George Delap, was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, to wit, a mate upon receiving and other ships belonging to the 
Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $168.64. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 
tive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 387 

appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same, was $168.64. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her husband was an officer in the 
Navy thereof, and she is a resident of the State of Florida, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States m the 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$168.64; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $168.64 (one hundred and 
sixty-eight dollars and sixty -four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGIA. 

JOHN T. PLUNKETT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-C. and F. No. 31. John T. Plunkett, heir at law of 
Thomas S. Plunkett, v. The United States.] 

# STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's deceased brother, Thomas S. Plunkett, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, as ensign upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th 
day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under 
the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $97.81. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House 
Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating 
for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following pro- 
viso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

"Act approved September 30, 1890." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 



388 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. 

Strong v. the United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust 
ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 
appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $97.81. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Georgia, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$97.81; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which 
still remains unpaid, is $97.81 (ninety-seven dollars and eighty-one cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed March 26, 1906. 
A true copv. 

Test this 28th day of March, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ILLINOIS. 

ANTONIA LYNCH AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—470. Antonia Lynch, Margaret Lynch, Charlotte L. Car- 
mody, Josephine L. Ridgeway, Jane L. Canby, children of Dominick Lynch, deceased, v. The United 
States. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimants' father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and 
report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. t 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $94.87. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In 
appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the fol- 
lowing proviso: 

■ ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the 
petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 389 

was found to be due, and then paid to claimants, the sum of $20.90, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not' relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $73.97. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Cook, 
in the State of Illinois, and elsewhere, and are the children of Dominick Lynch, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$94.87; the amount paid claimant was $20.90; the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is 
$73.97 (seventy-three dollars and ninety-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th clay of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY J. OWEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-481. Mary J. Owen, widow of Elias K. Owen, deceased, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,984.98. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character), Congress 
made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of $353.56, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $1,631.42. 



390 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. 

Subsequent appropriations statutes have contained the same proviso and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously- 
refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Ran- 
dolph in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of Elias K. Owen, whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

**• The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$1,984.98; the amount paid claimant was $353.56; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid 
is $1,631.42 (sixteen hundred and thirty-one dollars and forty-two cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MERRILL SPALDING, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 109425 — 77. Merrill Spalding, executor of Enoch G. Parrott, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $2,148.43. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso: 

''That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims urpon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of $259.83, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $1,888.60. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 391 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cook, 
in the State of Illinois, and is the executor of Enoch G. Parrott, deceased, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Con- 
gress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$2,148.43; the amount paid claimant was $259.83; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid 
is $1,888.60 (eighteen hundred and eighty-eight dollars and sixty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

HORATIO L. WAIT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—498. Horatio L. Wait v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceed- 
ings and report under the provisions -of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Penne baker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $239.53. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropri- 
ation the sum of $75.05, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 
1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $164.48. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 



392 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

|y FINDINGS OF FACT, 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cook, 
in the State of Illinois, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 
656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated 
for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$239.53; the amount paid claimant was $75.05; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, 
is $164.48 (one hundred and sixty-four dollars and forty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

INDIANA. 

G. V. MENZIES. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 489. G. V. Menzies v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers, under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $39.86. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in tbe Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which', 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $39.86. 

Subsequent appropration statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 393 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Posey, 
in the State of Indiana, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was 
adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as 
alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$39. S6; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $39.86 (thirty-nine dollars and 
eighty-six cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] JonN Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

KENTUCKY. 

THEODORE SPEIDEN AND WILLIAM S. SPEIDEN. 

[Court of Claims Congressional, No. 10942 — 533. Theodore Speiden and William S. Speiden, sons of 
William Speiden, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 
for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congresss approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong r. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $60.80. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in the 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July. 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same was $60.80. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously re- 
fused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Jefferson, in the State of Kentucky, and are the sons of William Speiden, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 



394 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$60.80. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $60.80 (sixty dollars and 
eighty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HARRY PEARSON AND ELBA P. GASSAWAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—543. Harry Pearson and Elba P. Gassaway, grandchildren 
of William Pearson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $30.80. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the fil- 
ing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claims 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same, was $30.80. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Hick- 
man, in the State of Kentucky, and are the grandchildren of William Pearson, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $30.80; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $30.80 (thirty dollars and 
eighty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 395 

MAINE. 
THOMAS W. BELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093-1. Thomas W. Bell v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801, for proceed- 
ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney -General by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

That he served as acting ensign in the United States Navy on the receiving ship 
Independence, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and 
allowances instead of sea pay and allowances to which he is entitled under the decision 
of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656). 

- That the difference between sea pay and shore pay amounting to $323.02 is due to 
claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 
1890. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Kennebunkport, 
Me., and is the identical person who served as acting ensign on the receiving ship In- 
dependence from November 26, 1867, to November 27, 1868. 

For said service claimant has been paid the shore pay and allowances of an ensign, 
and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the 
difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, an'd sea pay and 
allowances which he claims to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not 
Congress prohibited the payment of same. 

II. During the time claimant was attached to said receiving ship as aforesaid he had 
or was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said vessel, and was required 
to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the rules of the service to live with his 
family. 

III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an ensign from November 
26, 1867, to November 27/1868, and the amount which claimant has received for his 
service during that period is three hundred twenty-three dollars and two cents 
($323.02), no part of which has been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 15, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

DANIEL BUTLAND. 

Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 536. Daniel Butland, brother of Francis Butland, deceased, 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by the Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, 
for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. — 



396 ALLOWANCE OF' CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $718.58. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretray of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same, was $718.58. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of consul on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of York, 
in the State of Maine, and is the brother of Francis Butland, deceased, whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$718.58; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid, is seven hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty-eight cents ($718.58). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

LORING G. EMERSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12345. Loring G. Emerson v. United States.] 
statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant Loring G. Emerson was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 
for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. ._ 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of May, 1906. 

Mr. Eugene J. Bernhard appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Departmentjor settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $760.61. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 397 

In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

"That no part of any of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be 
paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the 
petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the 
basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant, Loring G. Emerson, would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $760.61. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims^ and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Han- 
cock, in the State of Maine, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated - for as 
alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$760.61; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is $760.61 (seven hundred and sixty 
dollars and sixty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed May 17, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

i Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MERRILL SPALDING AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-578. Merrill Spalding, James A. Spalding, Elizabeth T. 
Spalding, children of Lyman G. Spalding, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $87.51. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 



398 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of $23.40, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $64.11. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

findings op Pact. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Cum- 
berland, in the State of Maine, and are the children of Lyman G. Spalding, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. - ----- 1 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$87.51; the amount paid claimaints was $23.40; the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid 
is $64.11 (sixty-four dollars and eleven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day ot April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

•Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

FINDINGS IN CASE OF CHARLES H. EVANS. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & P. 151. Charles H. Evans v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent, William F. Laighton, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, a carpenter, upon receiving and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United State-. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers, 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 
$576.74. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in 
House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropri- 
ating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following 
proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim, 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 399 

United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was tiled in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference, in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same was $576.74. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideraton, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

That this officer, William F. Laighton, died on or about June 25, 1879, leaving a 
widow, Bessie D. Laighton, and as his only heir at law, a daughter, Alice Evans, 
and that under the Massachusetts General Statutes, chapter 291, paragraph 16, clause 
3, in force at the time of the decease of said officer, the said widow was entitled to 
one-third of his estate and his said daughter to the other two-thirds; that claimant, 
Charles H. Evans, is the duly appointed executor of the estate of the said Alice 
Evans, and is, accordingly, entitled to two-thirds ($384.49) of the amount of this 
claim, the other one-third being due to Bessie D. Laighton or her heirs. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Maine, and 
is the executor of one of the heirs of William F. Laighton, as aforesaid, said William 
F. Laighton being the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due said officer, or his heirs, by the accounting officers under 
the said decision was $576.74; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of 
Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $576.74 
(five hundred and seventy-six dollars and seventy-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 20, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Bandolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARYLAND. 

CHARLES F. BENNETT, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. No. 22. Charles F. Bennett, administrator o 
Nicholas Lynch, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while 
claimant's decedent, Nicholas Lynch, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, to wit, a saihnaker, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the 
Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $289.27. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- 
ment 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date -of the filing of 



400 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, 
the sum of $81.60, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to 
which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same was $207 .67. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OP PACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the Navy 
thereof, and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States against 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$289.27; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $81.60: the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid is $207.67 (two hundred and seven dollars and sixty-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 9, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES T. BOWLING. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C.and F. No. 3. James T. Bowling v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant, James T. Bowling, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, to wit, as acting ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, 
was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, refer- 
ring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. 
Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers, under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $395.73. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 
tive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for 
said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Act approved September 30, 
1890. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 401 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to the claimant out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 
1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in The United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $395.73. 

. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OP FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof 
and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$395.73; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act Cf Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid is $395.73 (three hundred and ninety-five dollars and seventy-three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 5, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY A. BRANNAN. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & P., No. 2. Mary A. Brannan, widow of James 
A. Brannan, deceased, v. The United States.] i: ~, 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's deceased husband, James A. Brannan, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting ensign upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th 
day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum them allowed being $1,318.48. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Exec- 
utive Document 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' 

Thereafter, pusuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 26 



402 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

States against Strong and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $1,318.48. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, make the following^ 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her dece'dent was an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$1,318.48; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $1,318.48 (one thousand three hundred 
and eighteen dollars and forty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HARRIET C. BROWN, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-516. Harriet C. Brown, administratrix of Thomas R. 
Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $256.22. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant, decedent, would have been entitled 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 403 

under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $256.22. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bal- 
timore City, in the State of Maryland, and is the administratrix of Thomas R. Brown, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$256.22; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $256.22 (two hundred and 
fifty-six dollars and twenty-two cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HENRY H. CLARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-504. Henry H. Clark v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings, 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. the United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,390.36. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in 
the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $1,390.36. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 



404 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following: 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Anne 
Arundel, in the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$1,390.36; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $1,390.36 (thirteen hundred 
and ninety dollars and thirty-six cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court- 
Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

FRANCIS A. COOK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—704. Francis A. Cook v. The United States ] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for the difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the J3th day of January, 1908. '£§ 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $870.47. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
for the allowance of said claim. " 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $870.47. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained thes ame proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Anne 
Arundel, in the State of Maryland, and is the identical person, whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 405 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $870.47; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which, still remains 
unpaid, is $870. 47 (eight hundred and seventy dollars and forty -seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy oJfthe findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EDWARD A. COUGHLIN, HEIR AT LAW OF PAUL ARMANDT. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F., No. 8. Edward A. Coughlin, next of kin 
and heir at law of Paul Armandt, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP .CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay, 
while claimant's grandfather, Paul Armandt, was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, to wit, as a mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the 
Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $63. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive 
Document 123, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allow- 
ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Act approved September 30, 1890. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of Strong 
v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, 
the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and 
to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same was $63. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso , and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

% FINDING OP PACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his grandfather was an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 



406 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$63; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1880, and which still remains 
unpaid, is $63 (sixty-three dollars). ' 

By the Court. 

Filed February 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1906, 
• [seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE T. DOUGLASS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 671. George T. Douglass, son of Daniel T. Douglass, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court. of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $21.40. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $21.40. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Balti- 
more, in the State of Maryland, and is the son of Daniel T. Douglass, deceased, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$21.40; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sept. 
30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $21.40 (twenty-one dollars and forty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF "CERTAIN- CLAIMS. 407 

HOWARD F. DOWNS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11918. Howard F. Downs, administrator de bonis non of the 
estate of James Hutchinson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent, James Hutchinson, was serving as an officer in the Navy 
of the United States, to wit, as a gunner upon the U. S. receiving ship Pennsylvania, 
from May 3, 1858, to April 9, 1859, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 26th day March, 1906. Messrs. 
Lyon & Lyon, appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van 
Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

That this claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum allowed being $321.62. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 
tive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
Which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " 

Act approved March 2, 1899. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same has been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than 
six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed. in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due and then paid to the claimant $85.50 out of said appro- 
priation, being the amount to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which decedent would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $236.12. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant, Howard F. Downs, is a citizen of the United States and a resident 
of Go vans, in the county of Baltimore, State of Maryland, and is the administrator 
of the estate of James Hutchinson, deceased. 

The decedent, James Hutchinson, was in his lifetime a gunner in the United States 
Navy, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in The United States v. Strong (125 U.S., 656) was adjusted 
by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in 
the petition. 

The amount found due said decedent by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $321.62; the amount paid was $85.50; the amount suspended under the proviso 
to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is 
two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twelve cents ($236.12). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 2, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



408 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

MARY J. FIELD. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F. No. 4. Mary J. Field, widow of William 

Field v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's deceased husband, William Field, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging 
to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 
1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. 
Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. 
Pradt, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- 
tion of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the deci- 
sion of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1694.89. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Docu- 
ment 199, Fifty -second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of 
any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom 
which accrued more than six years prit r to the date of the filing of the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered; " which, being affirmed by 
the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the 
allowance of said claim. (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due and then paid to the claimant's decedent out of said appropriation 
the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and 
to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in The United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $694.89. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy 
thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$694.89; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid is ($694.89) six hundred and ninety-four dollars and eighty-nine cents. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 5, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



' ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 409 

FANNIE S. B. HALM. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-484. Fannie S. B. Halm, widow (remarried) of John C. 
Beaumont, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 190C. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $81. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom, which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being afiirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16. 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $81. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

That claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Wash- 
ington, in the State of Maryland, and is the widow, remarried, of John C. Beaumont, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$81; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $81 (eighty-one dollars). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



410 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CHARLES A. LE COMPTE. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. No. 18. Charles A. LeCompte v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's deceased brother, Granville B. LeCompte, was serving as an officer 
in "the Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon, upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. 
VanArsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $322.93. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 
tive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 
1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said 'proviso did not relate. 

The accounting Officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in The United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $322.93. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the 
•Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$322.93; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid is $322.93 (three hundred and twenty-two dollars and ninety-three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 411 

anna Mcdonald. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. Anna McDonald, widow of James McDonald, v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's deceased husband, James McDonald, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th 
day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of January, 1905. 
Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
L A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 666), the sum thus allowed being §422.45. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive 
Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allow- 
ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, - 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

"Act approved September 30, 1890." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay. as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in The United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $422.45. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
full consideration makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$422.45; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended, 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $422.45 (four hundred and twenty-two dollars and forty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 6, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of November, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



412 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

WILLIAM MOODY. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. and F. 10. William Moody v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. i, 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant, AVilliam Moody, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, to wit, as ensign, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was 
transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1903, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $543.94. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 
tive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for 
said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to. which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 
^Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $543.94. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof, 
and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in The United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $543.94; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still re- 
mains unpaid is ($543.94) five hundred and forty-three dollars and ninety-four cents. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 5, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 413 

EDWARD K. RAWSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 505. Edward K. Rawson v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $136.99. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropri- 
ation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: t 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $136.99. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Anne 
Arundel, in the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$136.99; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $136.99 (one hundred and thirty-six 
dollars and ninety-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 
seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



414 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ALBERT P. SOUTHWICK, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12142 — Sub. No. 1. Albert P. Southwick, administrator of the 
estate of John Southwick, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent, John Southwick, was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to this court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, A. D. 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907, and 
Ralston & Siddons appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van 
Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following averment : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court in the case of Strong v. The United 
States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed for Navy pay being $875.89. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- 
ment No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session, pages 41 and 46. In appropriating 
for said allowance and others of like character, Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 1889.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted such claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the decision of the case 
of Strong v. The United States and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent, on account of 
Navy pay out of said appropriation, the sum of $234.21, being the amount which ac- 
crued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The 
accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior 
to July 16, 1880, and to which the claimant would have been entitled under the deci- 
sion of the case of Strong against The United States had not Congress prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $641.68. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury Department, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and similar claims, and the same are now unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and the duly appointed administrator 
of the estate of John Southwick, deceased; that said decedent was an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the iden- 
tical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Strong v. The 
United States (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

II. The amount found due claimant for navy pay by the accounting officers under 
said decision was $875.89. The amount paid claimant's decedent for navy pay was 
$234.21. The amount suspended under the proviso of the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is six hundred and forty-one dollars 
and sixty-eight cents ($641.68). 

By the Court. 
Filed February 11, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 415 

WILLIAM G. SPROSTAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 478. William G, Sprostan, brother of John G. Sprostan, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's brother was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel. esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $59.25. 
This action was reported to Congress .by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pa*y as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same was 159.25. 

*• Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Balti- 
more City, in the State of Maryland, and is the brother of John G. Sprostan, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$59.25; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid, is $59.25 (fifty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact' as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] • John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



416 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

MARY T. SWEETING. 

Jin the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. and F. No. 15. Mary T. Sweeting, heir-at-law of 
John Joins, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's grandfather, John Joins, was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, to wit, as sailmaker, upon receiving and other ships belonging 
to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of March, 1906. 
Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
■decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $245.14. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- 
ment 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of anyone of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 1889.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of $65.55, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of .the same, was $179.59. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her grandfather was an officer of the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose 
claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$245.14; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $65.55; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains 
unpaid is $179.59 (one hundred and seventy-nine dollars and fifty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed March 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 417 

LOUIS A. CORNTHWAITE. 

[Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 13093— 6. Louis A. Cornthwaite v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy wae transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 2d day of March. 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801, for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

That he^erved as acting ensign in the United States Navy on the receiving ship Alle- 
ghany, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances 
instead of sea pay and allowances, to which he is entitled under the decision of this 
court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656). 

That the difference between sea pay and shore payi amounting to $861.39, is due to 
claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 
1890. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department and after con- 
sidering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Baltimore, Md., 
and is the identical person who served as acting ensign on the receiving ship Alleghany 
from July 3, 1865, to March 18, 1868. 

For said service claimant has been paid the shore pay and allowances of an ensign, 
and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the 
difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, and sea pay and 
allowances which he claims to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not 
Congress prohibited the payment of same. 

II. It does not appear that during the time claimant was attached to said receiving 
ship as aforesaid he had or was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said 
vessel, or that he was required to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the rulee 
of the service to live with his family. 

III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an ensign from July 3, 
1865 to March 18, 1868, and the amount which claimant has received for his service 
during that period, is eight hundred and sixty-one dollars and thirty-nine cents 
($861.39), no part of which has been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 22, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test the 2d day of March, 1908. 
[seal.j John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

MARY J. ABBOTT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—690. Mary J. Abbott, widow of William A. Abbott 

deceased, v. The United States] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5849 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 27 



418 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $52.59. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting offi- 
cers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted «eaid claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880. and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $52.59. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the widow of William A. Abbott, deceased, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$52.59; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $52.59 (fifty-two dollars and 
fifty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 

Test this 6th day of December. 1906. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOSIAH B. AIKEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 468. Josiah B. Aiken v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon 
receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April. 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 419 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $230.64. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appro- 
priation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 18^6, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due. and then paid to claimant out of said appro- 
priation, the sum of $81.60, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 
16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $149.04. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Suffolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Con- 
gress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers Under said decision 
was $230.64; the amount paid claimant was $81.60; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress, approved March 2, 1889, and which, still remains 
unpaid is $149.04 (one hundred and forty-nine dollars and four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ADMINISTRATORS OF WELD N. ALLEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12142. Sub. No. 2. Lucy M". Allen and Joseph A. Holmes, 
administrators of trie estate of Weld N. Allen, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
.while claimant's decedent, Weld N. Allen, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to this court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, A. D. 1902, referring Senate 
bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, A. D. 1907. 

Messrs. Ralston & Siddons appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by J. A. 
Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following averment: This 
claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury De- 



420 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

partment for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the deci- 
sion of this court, and of the Supreme Court in the case of Strong v. The United States 
(125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed for navy pay being $410.03. This action was 
reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 
144, Fifty-first Congress, first session, pages 136 and 141. In appropriating for said 
allowance and others of like character Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the. judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supfeme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted such claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the decision of the case 
of Strong v. The United States, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers 
also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and 
to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the case of 
Strong against the United States, had not Congress prohibited the payment of the same 
was $410.03. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury Department, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and similar claims, and the same are now unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, after full 
consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States and the duly appointed administrators, 
of the estate of Weld N. Allen, deceased; that said decedent was an officer in the Navy 
of the United States, and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical 
person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Strong v. The United 
States (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $410.03; the amoimt suspended under the proviso of the act of Congress approved 
. March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $410.03 (four hundred and ten dol- 
lars and three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY ELIZABETH BABBITT, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES W. BABBITT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—715. Mary Elizabeth Babbitt, daughter of Charles W 
Babbitt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: That she 
is the daughter of Charles W. Babbitt, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $97.70. This 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 421 

action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $97.70. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bristol, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of Charles W. Babbitt, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and apprpriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$97.70; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid, is $97.70 (ninety-seven dollars and seventy cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ALMENA B. BATES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—506. Almena B. Bates, daughter of John A. Bates, deceased. 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the Court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $904.63. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriationis applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years .prior to the date of the 



422 ALLOWANCE OE CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said 
appropriation, the sum of $261.59, being the amount which accrued subsequent to 
July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $643.04. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suf- 
folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of John A. Bates, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $904.63; the amount paid claimant was $261.59; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains 
unpaid is $643.04 (six hundred and forty-three dollars and four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. • 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GRACE E. AND MARY E. BOLTON, HEIRS OF WILLIAM H. BOLTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 145. Grace E. Bolton and Mary E. Bolton, 
sole heirs at law of William H. Bolton, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, William H. Bolton, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, a mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging 
to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $164.88. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive 
Document 171, Fifty-first Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allow- 
ance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these 
claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis of allowance of such claims. 



Allowance of certain claims. 423 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- 
ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appro- 
priation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 
16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $164.88. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following: 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and are the identical 
persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $164.88; the amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid is one hundred and sixty-four dollars and eighty-eight 
cents ($164.88). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 8, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of .April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HELEN BRYANT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-585. Helen Bryant, granddaughter of William Black, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $322.40. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the f ollownig proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting offi- 
cers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " 



424 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS*. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $322.40. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Nor- 
folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the granddaughter of William Black, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $322.40; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $322.40 (three hundred and 
twenty-two dollars and forty cents.) 

By the Court. 

Filed December 24, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court . 

Test this 29th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 

WILLIAM F. BURDITT AND OTHERS. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—559. William F. Burditt, Eleanora B. Kimball, Albert B. 
Burditt, Charlotte Ferguson, children of William Burditt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimants' decedent was serving as, an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the deci- 
sion of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. 
The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $317.10. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appro- 
priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following 
proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the 
petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
for the allowance of said claim. " 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17,1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 425 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $317.10. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Suffolk 
and elsewhere in the State of Massachusetts, and are the children of William Burditt, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$317.10; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $317.10 (three hundred and 
seventeen dollars and ten cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

VIRGINIA M. CHASE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 539. Virginia M. Chase, daughter of Moses B. Chase, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being- $152. 80. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as a basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $152.80. 



426 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suf- 
folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of Moses B. Chase, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$152.80; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $152.80 (one hundred and 
fifty-two dollars and eighty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

IDA T. COGGESHALL, DAUGHTER OF JAMES B. RUSSELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—710. Ida T. Coggeshall, daughter of James B. Russell, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, between difference for sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer of the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $172.09. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same' had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued mor 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $112.09. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 427 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I^The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bristol, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of James B. Russell, deceased, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
1112.09; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains 
unpaid is $112.09 (one hundred and twelve dollars and nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FREDERICK W. COTTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—566. Frederick W. Cotton v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $130.94. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropri- 
ation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Siipreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, an<i that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $130.94. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Nor- 
folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 



428 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$130.94; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $130.94 (one hundred and thirty 
dollars and ninety-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EDWARD CRONIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 589. Edward Cronin v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 
lution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and 
report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $79.20. _ This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso:', 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment' was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States v. Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the 
same, was $79.20. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant' to said provisoris, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$79.20; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is seventy-nine dollars and twenty 
cents ($79.20). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 429 

ALEXANDER D. DAMON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 681. Alexander D. Damon v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving 
and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General^ by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong 
v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $54.79. This action 
was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appro- 
priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following 
proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 18.86, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of 
the same, was $54.79. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the indentical person whose claim under the deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 
656)'was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$54.79; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 
28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $54.79 (fifty-four dollars and seventy-nine 
cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHARLES T. DAVID. m 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—596. Charles T. Davis, nephew of James S. Thornton, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court 



430 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $51.25. This 
action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In 
appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the follow- 
ing proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same, was $51.25. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the nephew of James S. Thornton, deceased, whose 
claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$51.25; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $51.25 (fifty-one dollars and 
twenty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EZRA Z. DERR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 486. Ezra Z. Derr v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon re- 
ceiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906, 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 431 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $27.40. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one. of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of'the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The .accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same was $27.40. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim under the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 
656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated 
for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$27.40; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
March 2, 1891, and which still remains unpaid, is $27.40 (twenty-seven dollars and 
forty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

, CHARLES H. EVANS. 
[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. &F. 151. Charles H. Evans v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OP CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay -and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent, William F. Laighton, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, a carpenter, upon receiving and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy, was transmitted* to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers, under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $576.74. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- 



432 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

tive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said 
allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers, 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same was $576.74. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury**Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

That this officer, AVilliam F. Laighton, died on or about June 25, 1879, leaving a 
widow, Bessie D. Laighton, and as his only heir at law, a daughter, Alice Evans, and 
that under the Massachusetts General Statutes, chapter 294, paragraph 16, clause 3, 
in force at the time of the decease of said officer, the said widow was entitled to one- 
third of his estate and his said daughter to the other two-thirds; that claimant Charles 
H. Evans is the duly appointed executor of the estate, of the said Alice Evans, and is, 
accordingly, entitled to two-thirds ($384.49) of the amount of this claim, the other 
one-third being due to Bessie D. Laighton or her heirs. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Maine, and 
is the executor of one of the heirs of William F. Laighton as aforesaid, said William 
F. Laighton being the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in the case of The United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), 
was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due said officer, or his heirs, by the accounting officers under 
the said decision was $576.74; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of 
Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $576.74 
(five hundred and seventy-six dollars and seventy-four cents.) 

By the Court. 

Filed January 20, 1908. 

A true copy. 
' Test this 20th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EMILY A. GIFFORD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—628. Emily A. Gifford, widow of George P. Gifford, de- 
ceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887 . 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 433 

the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $83.63. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 
which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued 
more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said 
case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited 
the payment of the same, was $83.68. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bristol, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the widow of George P. Gifford, deceased, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$83.63; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 
28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $83.63 (eighty-three dollars and sixty-three 
cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MANASSEH GOODWIN, HEIR OF EZRA S. GOODWIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 153. Majiasseh Goodwin, heir of Ezra S. 

Goodwin, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent, Ezra S. Goodwin, was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and other ships belonging 
to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 
1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of May, 1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of. the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $234.21. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Ex. 
Doc. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any oneof these claims 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 28 



434 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition 
in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of 
allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropria- 
tion, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the 
decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $234.21. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to 
allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer of the Navy 
thereof and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose 
claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$234.21; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid, is two hundred thirty-four dollars and twenty -one cents ($234.21). 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ARTEMAS P. HANNUM, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOSIAH A. HANNUM. 

] In the Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 99. Artemas P. Hannum, administrator 
c. t. a. d. b. n. of Josiah A. Hannum, deceased, v. The United States.] 

• STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
whilst claimant's decedent, Josiah A. Hannum, was serving an as officer in the Navy 
of the United States, to wit, as acting master upon receiving and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of- the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $368.62. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate 
Executive Document No. 123, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating 
for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropiration is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 
filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 435 

which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting 
officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims." (Act approved March 2, 1889.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for 
such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United 
States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. 
The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there 
was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation 
the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, 
and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same, was $368.62. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after full 
-consideration, makes the following 

; FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$368.62; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $368.62 (three hundred and sixty-eight dollars sixty-two cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELLIOTT C. HARRINGTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—483. Elliott C. Harrington v. The United States.] 
STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and 
report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the 
decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $263.66. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others oi like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be paid_ therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of 
the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in 



436 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 
than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment 
there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the 
Bum of $106.20, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to 
which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under 
the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment 
of the same, was $157.46. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused 
to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, 
in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$263.66; the amount paid claimant was $106.20; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid,. 
is $157.46 (one hundred and fifty-seven dollars and forty-six cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

KATHARINE A. HORAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—697. Katharine A. Horan, daughter of William Langdon, 

deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay 
while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones apj>eared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: That 
she is the daughter of William Langdon, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case 
of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $587.50. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- 
tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso: 

' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall 
be uaid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing 
of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which 
being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers 
as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim 
for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in 
United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 437 

than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case 
of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior 
to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled 
under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the 
payment of the same was $587.50. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after 
considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suf- 
folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of William Langdon, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$587.50; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved 
September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $587.50 (five hundred and 
eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents). 

By the Cotjkt. 

Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE E. LEACH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F., No. 53. George B. Leach, admin- 
istrator estate of Phineas Leach, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimant's decedent, Phineas Leach, was serving as an officer 
in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 
lution on the 1st day of February, 1906, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- 
lowed being $1,023.74. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- 
ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid 
which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being aflirmed 
by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 



438 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to Jury 16, 18S0, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,023.74. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the identi- 
cal person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $1,023.74 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress; 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is one thousand twenty- 
three dollars and seventy-four cents ($1,023.74). ' 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. 

EDWARD D. MARCHANT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 476. Edward D. Marchant, son of Cor- 
nelius M. Marchant, deceased, v. The United States. 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought, to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction^ 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : ■ 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 650), the 
sum thus allowed being $303.45. This action was reported to Congress by the 
Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allow- 
ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said daim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
■claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 439 

the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was tiled in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $303.45. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Tbe claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Dukes, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the son of Cornelius M. Mar- 
chant, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $303.45 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $303.45 (three 
hundred and three dollars and forty-five cents.) 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FERDINAND G. MORRILL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 683. Ferdinand G. Morrill v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 18S7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by A. J. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : . 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $11S.9S. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 



440 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $118.98. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Suffolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $118.98 ; the amount paid claimant was nothing ; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and 
which still remains unpaid is $118.98 (one hundred and eighteen dollars and 
ninety-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ESTHER AND THERESA REDINGTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F. No. 48. Esther and Theresa 
Redington, only heirs of Robert Redington, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claimant in the above-entitled case for difference betwen sea pay and 
shore pay while claimants' decedent, Robert Redington, was serving as an officer 
in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon upon receiving 
and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1S87. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant ; and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 
• The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $238. 7S. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 211, Fifty-first Congress, first 
session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 
<Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 441 

decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate.. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $238.78. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States and their decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the 
identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due the decedent by the accounting officers under said 
decision was $238.78; the amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing; the 
amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 
30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $238.78 (two hundred and thirty- 
eight dollars and seventy-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 9, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE H. RICHARDS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 611. George H. Richards, administrator, 
with the will annexed, of William A. Parker, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution, on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings aiad report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 
3906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $2,230. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 



442 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $2,230. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a' resident of the county of 
Norfolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the administrator of William A. 
Parker, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $2,230 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- 
gress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $2,230 
(two thousand two hundred and thirty dollars). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MABEL G. SMITH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 512. Mabel G. Smith, daughter of Thomas 
Smith, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $716.29. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 443 

roeiit was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $422.60, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officer also found that the difference in pay bewteen that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $293.69. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Middlesex, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daxighter of Thomas Smith, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $716.29; the amount paid claimant was $422.60; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which 
still remains unpaid is two hundred and ninety-three dollars and sixty-nine 
cents ($293.69). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

JOHN T. SPAVIN AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 558. John T. Spavin, Annie M. Spavin, 
Ernestine E. Spavin, Jennie Whittemore, Elizabeth Farnham, children of Robert Spavin, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $282.81. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 



444 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
•claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
■claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $282.81. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Suffolk in the State of Massachusetts, and are the children of Robert Spavin, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $282.81 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is two hundred and 
eighty -two dollars and eighty-one cents ($282.81). 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph; 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HARRY N. STEARNS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

fin the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12644. Harry N. Stearns, administrator of the 
estate of Francis Josselyn, deceased, petitioner, v. The United States, defendant.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case is for difference between sea and shore 
pay and commutation of rations while petitioner's decedent, Francis Josselyn, 
was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as a volunteer 
lieutenant upon the receiving ship Alleghany, was transmitted to the court by a 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, 
for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of January, 
1907. 

Walter D. Davidge appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense 
and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
United States for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 445 

case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 
$1,183.19. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury in House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session, 
pages 137, 142. In appropriation for said allowance and others of like char- 
acter, Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid 
which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States 
against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six 
years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the above case of 
Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- 
justment there was found to be due, and then paid to the claimant's decedent, 
out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued 
subsequently to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso does not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1890, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,183.19. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, maintains the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of Massachusetts, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
The United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting 
officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $1,183.19. The amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing. The 
amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 
30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $1,183.19 (eleven hundred and 
eighty-three dollars and nineteen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. • 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of January, 1907. 

[seax.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN A. TANNER. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 527. John A. Tanner v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in 



446 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $238.62. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of 
like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being' affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed 
in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $238.62. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Suffolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $238.62; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $238.62 (two hundred 
and thirty-eight dollars and sixty-two cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

EDWARD K. VALENTINE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 493. Edward K. Valentine v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. "Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $1,137.47. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 447 

tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
•entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,137.47. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Suffolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $1,137.47; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $1,137.47 
(eleven hundred and thirty-seven dollars and forty-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims: 

MARY B. WILLBY, DAUGHTER OF GEORGE F. WILLEY. 

ICourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 154. Mary B. Willey, 
daughter and only child of George F. Willey, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, George F. Willey, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, a mate, upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of May, 1907. 

Messrs.' Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the name of George F. Willey under the decision of this court and of the 
Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States 
(125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $2S8.83. This action was re- 
ported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- 
ment No. 67, Fifty-first Congress, second session. In appropriating for said al- 



448 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

lowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any 
one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior 
to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and 
then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, 
being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said 
proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $288.83. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of . Massachusetts, and is the iden- 
tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $288.83 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing ; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 3, 1891, 
and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred eighty-eight dollars and eighty- 
three cents ($288.83). 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1907. 
' [seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELIZABETH N. COURTNEY. 

tin the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093 — 7. Elizabeth N. Courtney, widow of 
Charles Courtney, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring 
Senate bill No. 7801, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

That Charles Courtney served as an acting master on the receiving ship Ohio, 
and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances 
instead of sea pay and allowances to which he is entitled under the decision of 
this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 449 

That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $378.81, is 
due to claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of 
September 30, 1890. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. That claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State 
of Massachusetts, and is the widow of Charles Courtney, who served as acting 
master on the receiving ship Ohio from October 25. 1864, to October 22, 1865, 
and from November 2, 1865, to November 10, 1865. . 

For said service claimant's decedent has been paid the shore and allowances 
of an acting master, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting 
officers of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances 
which he received and sea pay and allowances which she claims to be entitled 
to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress prohibited the pay- 
ment of the same. 

II. During the time claimant's decedent was attached to said receiving ship 
as aforesaid he had his quarters and messed on board said vessel, and was 
required to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the rules of the service 
to live with his family. 

III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an acting master 
fron; October 25, 1864, to October 22, 1865, and from November 2, 1865, to 
November 10, 1S65, and the amount which claimant has received during that 
period is three hundred seventy-eight dollars and eight y-one cents ($378.81), 
no part of which has been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 20, 1908. 
A true copy. 

Test this February 24, 190S. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MICHIGAN. 

MART F. CLARK. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-479. Mary F. Clark, widow of Frank H, 
Clark, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3. 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the 
sum thus allowed being $212.88. This action was reported to Congress by the 
Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allow- 
ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 
S. Rep, 382, 60-1 29 



450 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as tbe same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and 
then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $12.33, 
being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
t have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $200.55. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and 
ithe accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are 
still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Houghton, in the State of Michigan, and is the widow of Frank H. Clark, whose 
-claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
:States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
■ was $212.88 ; the amount paid claimant was $12.33 ; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which 
still remains unpaid, is $200.55 (two hundred dollars and fifty-five cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

-A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 
Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 
■Iseal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

GEORGE G. CLAY. 
I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-496. George G. Clay v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
ipay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
uipoTa receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
'Court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
t>949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
fcy J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
•cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
stilus allowed being $305.76. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
■cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has beer 
/adiopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 451 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accountiug officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date ou 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed 
in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $305.76. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Kent, in the State of Michigan, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $305.76 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $305.76 (three 
hundred and five dollars and seventy-six cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MISSOURI. 

MARY S. McQUADE AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10042 — 632. Mary S. McQuade and William A. 
Chambers, children of William Smith, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was 
transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th dav of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants, in their petition, make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $188.75. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the. Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Xourt, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 



452 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to .July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $188.75. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
, accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county 
of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and the children of William Smith, de- 
ceased, whose claim Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $188.75 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- 
gress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $188.75 
(one hundred and eighty-eight dollars and seventy -five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BELLE M. RABORG. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 537. Belle M. Raborg, widow of George B. 
Raborg, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisons of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United .States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $109.20. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso:. 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 453 

decision iu United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $109.20. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of St. Louis City, in the State of Missouri, and is the widow of George B. 
Raborg, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted 
by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as 
alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $109.20. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of 
Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains uupaid, is 
$109.20 (one hundred and nine dollars and twenty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARIA L. RODGERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 612. Maria L. Rodgers, granddaughter 
of Andrew K. Long, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $98.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Trensury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled^under the said 



454 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $98.60. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
St. Louis City, in the State of Missouri, and is the granddaughter of Andrew E. 
Long, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $98.60, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- 
proved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $9S.60 (ninety- 
eight dollars and sixty cents). 

By the Coukt. 

Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

NEBRASKA. 
WILLARD FOSTER, HEIR OF EDWARD FOSTER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. 109. Willard Foster, heir-at-law 
of Edward Foster, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay, while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, to wit, as paymaster, upon receiving and other ships belonging 
to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th clay 
of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under 
the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of November, 
1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $259.66. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Con- 
gress, first session. In appropriating for such -allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress provided that no part of any of these claims should be 
paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition 
in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis of allowance of such claims. 






ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 455 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same 
decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $259.66. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of Nebraska, and is the identical 
person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant under said decision was $259.66 ; the amount 
paid claimant's decedent was nothing : the amount suspended under the pro- 
viso to the act of Congress approved July 28, ' 1892, and which still remains 
unpaid, is $259.66 (two hundred and fifty-nine dollars and sixty-six cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 5th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

• 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

HAZEL O. GOODSOE AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942 — 540. Hazel O. Goodsoe, Perle E. Nute r 
Leonora W. Goodsoe. and E. Shirlet Rundlett, children of Augustus O. Goodsoe, de- 
ceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the cdurt by Senate resolution on the 4th clay of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the- 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April- 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and 'the Attorney-Gen- 
eral by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 1 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the- 
Treasuiw Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers- 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- 
lowed being $413.40. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 



456 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopt- 
ed by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.*' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $119.70, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $293.70. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county 
of Rockingham, in the State of. New Hampshire, and are the children of Au- 
gustus O. Goodsoe, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was ad- 
justed by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as 
alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $413.40 ; the amount paid claimant was $119.70 ; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1SS9, and which 
still remains unpaid is $293.70 (.two hundred and ninety-three dollars and sev- 
enty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906: 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EMMA G. JENNESS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 495. Emma G. Jenness, widow of Thomas 
B.. Gammon, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of .the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 457 

States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $20S.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which, being affirmed by tbe Supreme Court, has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any portion of 
the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $208.60. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Rockingham; in the State of New Hampshire, and is the widow of Thomas 
B. Gammon, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $208.60; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress, 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is $208.60 (two hundred 
and eighty dollars and sixty cents). 

By the Couet. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARIE S. PERRIMOND. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 693. Marie S. Perrimond, widow of Xavier 
Perrimond, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 
1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegation : 

That she is the widow of Xavier Perrimond, deceased 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 



458 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $60. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Rockingham, in the State of New Hampshire, and is the widow of Xavier 
Perrimond, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $60. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $60 (sixty 
dollars). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 28, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 30th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

EMMA M. GAY, EXECUTRIX. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942 — C. and F. 172. Emma M. Gay, 
widow and executrix of Thomas S. Gay, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Thomas S. Gay, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting ensign on the receiving ship Van- 
dalia, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Colden & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 459 

cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $477.65. This action was reported to Congress by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first 
Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which the appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same has been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $477.65. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of 
New Hampshire, and claimant's decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof 
and the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted 
by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

Amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $477.65 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is four hundred 
and seventy-seven dollars and sixty-five cents ($477.65). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 17, 190S. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 190S. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NEW JERSEY. 

KATHARINE M. BURNETT. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. &. F. No. 98. Katharine M. 
Burnett, widow of Joseph C. Burnett, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Joseph C. Burnett, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign, upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of tbe interests of the United States. 



460 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

" The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $140.25." 

This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in 
House Executive Document 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appro- 
priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided 
that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than 
six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon 
which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, 
has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such 
claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against. Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $43.94, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 18S0, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $96.31. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $140.25 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $43.94 ; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $96.31 (ninety-six dollars and thirty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claim*. 

NELSON H. DRAKE. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-490. Nelson H. Drake v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 461 

General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the .United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $346.S5. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $346.85. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Morris, in the State of New Jersey, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $346.85, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- 
gress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $346.85 
(three hundred and forty-six dollars and eighty -five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

LOUISE E. ELDER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 550. Louise E. Elder, widow of Robert B. 
Elder, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



462 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant hi her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $144.84. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

'" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent wouid 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $144.84. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- 
lowing ' 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the widow of Robert E. Elder, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $144.84 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $144.84 (one 
hundred and forty -four dollars and eighty-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CLARA B. HASSLER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 81. Clara B. Hassler, widow 
of Charles W. Hassler, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Charles W. Hassler, was serving as an officer 
in the Navy of the United States — to wit, as paymaster — upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 
lution ou the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 463 

Tlie claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The .claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by snch accounting officers 
under the decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $815.49. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in Senate Executive Document 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued 
more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims 
upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme 
Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance 
of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior- to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $249.14. 
being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said 
proviso did not relate. 

The acounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $566.35. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New Jersey and is the iden- 
tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $815.49; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $249.14; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, 
and which still remains unpaid, is $566.35 (five hundred and sixty-six dollars 
and thirty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ANDREW McCLEARY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-609. Andrew McCleary v. The United 

States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 
1906. 



464 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Messrs. Penuebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for* settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S. 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $397.45. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow' any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $397.45. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Camden, in the State of New Jersey, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $397.45 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $397.45 (three 
hundred and ninety-seven dollars and forty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

AMANDA E. MacFARLANE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10942-427. Amanda E. MacFarlane, widow 
of John MacFarlane, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference, between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy 
of the United States, to wit, a carpenter, upon receiving and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 24th 
day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones 
appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 465 

assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of 
the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

That she is the widow of John MacFarlane, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the 
sum thus allowed being $254.79. This action was reported to Congress by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, 
second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the 
judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 
(Act approved March 2, 18S9.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant nothing out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was nothing. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of 
New Jersey, and is the widow of John MacFarlane, whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $254.79; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended 
ander the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which 
still remains unpaid, is $254.79. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy of the finding of facts as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THOMAS MASON. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11247. Thomas Mason v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled* cause, for difference between sea pay and 

shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer of the Navy of the United 

States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to 

the court by Senate resolution on the 4th of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 30 



466 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The claimant in his petition makes specifically the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 

allowed being . This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 

of the Treasury (H. Ex. Doc. No. 144, 51st Cong., 1st sess.). In appropriating 
for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following 
proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance for said claim. 

" Act approved September 30, 1890, 26 Stat. L., 543." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the deci- 
sion of Strong v. United States, and refused to allow any of said claims, 
because the whole of it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the 
date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. United States was filed 
in the Court of Claims. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

The claimant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State 
of New Jersey, and is the identical Thomas Mason whose claim under the deci- 
sion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Strong v. United States (125 
U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and 
appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said 
decision was $37.94. 

The amount paid said claimant was nothing. 

There therefore remains due and still unpaid ($37.94) thirty-seven dollars 
and ninety-four cents. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

WALTER J. MAYER AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 91. Walter J. Mayer, Alfred 
J. Mayer, and Ida J. Mayer Storch, heirs of William H. Mayer, jr., deceased, v. The 
United States.] 

STATEMENT of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimants' decedent, William H. Mayer, jr., was serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, a lieutenant — upon receiving 
and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report upon the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by J. A. Von Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 467 

under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $231.72. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first ses- 
sion. In appropriation for said allowance (and others of like character) Con- 
gress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which 
accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court 
of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the 
Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of 
allowance of such claims. 

Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $181.92. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and are the 
identical persons, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656') was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $231.72 ; the amount paid claimants' decedent was $49.80 : the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, 
and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and eighty-one dollars and 
ninety-two cents ($181.92). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CLIFFORD C. PEARSON, JR., ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, M. & C, 2. Clifford C. Pearson, jr., 
administrator of estate of Clifford C. Pearson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above case, for the difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon a receiving ship belonging to said Navy, was transmitted 
to this court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 4th day of Jime, 
1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- 
visions of the act of March'3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of May, 
1906. 



468 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. 
J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : 

That he is the. duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the 
estate of Clifford C. Pearson, deceased, late of Plainfield, county of Uuion, 
State of New Jersey ; that said decedent was late pay clerk in the United States 
Navy ; that decedent's claim was previously presented to the proper accounting 
officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by said 
officers under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Strong v. The United States (126 U. S., 656) ; that the sum so allowed 
was $294.49 ; that this action was reported to Congress under House Executive 
Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session ; that in appropriating for 
said allowance and others of like character Congress provided that said appro- 
priations should not be applied to the payment of any such claim which accrued 
more than six years prior to the date of filing of petition in the Court of 
Claims in said case of Strong v. The United States. (See act of Mar. 2, 1SS9, 
25 Stat. L., 938.) Subsequent appropriations have contained similar pro- 
visions. 

" That thereafter said accounting officers rejected said claim and refused to 
allow and pay any portion thereof, and said accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department have refused and do still refuse to pay this claim." 

The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments 
of counsel upon each side, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, Clifford C. Pearson, jr., is a citizen of the United States and 
a resident of the county of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, and is the duly 
appointed, qualified, and acting administrator, with the will annexed, of the 
estate of Clifford C. Pearson, deceased. 

II. That said Clifford C. Pearson, deceased, is the person whose claim was 
adjusted by the proper accounting officers in the sum of $294.49, but for the 
payment of which claim no appropiation has been made, save with the above- 
noted proviso. The amount found due to the claimant by the proper accounting 
officers under the decision of the Supreme Court of the .United States in the 
case of Strong v. The United States was $294.49, which still remains unpaid. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ROBERT C. RIBBANS, GUARDIAN MINOR HEIRS OF ISAIAH E. 

CROWELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-572. Robert C. Ribbans, guardian of minor 
heirs of Isaiah E. Crowell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially ^the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 469 

States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $663.96. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $140.82, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the paymfent of the same was $523.14. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. , 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the guardian of the minor children 
of Isaiah E. Crowell, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U.S., 656) was 
adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $663.96; the amount paid claimant was $140.14; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $523.14 (five hundred and twenty-three dollars 
and fourteen cents). 

By the Court. 

Piled April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ROBERT C. RIBBANS, GUARDIAN MINOR HEIRS OF WILLIAM N. 

MAULL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 571. Robert C. Ribbans, guardian minor 
heirs of William N. Maull, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 
I 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 
1906. 



470 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $159. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any portion of 
the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date 
on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed 
in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that tlie difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $159. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon jthe evidence and the report of the Treasury Department 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the guardian of the minor heirs 
of William N. Maull, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was 
adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $159 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $159 (one 
hundred and fifty-nine dollars). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

WINNIE M. STILLWELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 662. Winnie M. Stillwell, widow of James 
Stillwell, deceased, v. The United States. 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 471 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and inTder his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The Unted States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $30.75. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of fhe petition in the Court of Claims upon which the 
judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, 
as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in. the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $30.75. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the widow of James Stillwell, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $30.75, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $30.75 (thirty 
dollars and seventy-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings Of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

NEW MEXICO. 
CLIFFORD B. GILL. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 518. Clifford B. Gill v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
on receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 



472 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 
5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and tbe Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $801.01. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the .iudgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.!' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $34.66, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $766.35. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Dona Ana, in the Territory of New Mexico, and is the identical person whose 
claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $801.01 ; the amount paid claimant was $34.66 ; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still re- 
mains unpaid, is $766.35 (seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-five 
cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 2-2, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 473 

NEW YORK. 
HEIRS OF JOHN J. ABERNETHY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 139. Helen S. Abernethy ana 
Charles H. Abernethy, sole heirs at law of John J. Abernethy, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent, John J. Abernethy, was serving as an officer 
in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a surgeon, upon receiving and other 
ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 
1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of tlie United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $614.21. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first session. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued 
more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of 
Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the 
Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of 
allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $423.16, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $191.05. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are 
still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and are the iden- 
tical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said 
decisions was $614.21; the amount paid claimants' decedent was $423.16; the 
amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 
30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and ninety-one dollars 
and five cents ($191.05). 

BY THE COURT. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



474 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

WILLIAM H. BACON AND ANNIE M. SMITH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. 191. William EL' Bacon and 
Annie M. Smith, hdirs at law of Francis H. Bacon, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent, Francis H. Bacon, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting onsign upon receiving and other 
ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and re- 
port under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants, in their petition, make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $186.22. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first 
session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $186.22. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States, and claimants' decedent was an 
officer in the Navy thereof, and are residents of the States of New York and New 
Jersey, and claimants' decedent is the identical person whose claim under the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, 
and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants' decedent by the accounting officers under 
said decision was $186.22; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act 
of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one 
hundred and eighty-six dollars and twenty -two cents ($1S6.22). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1908. 

[seat,.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 475 

FANNY BELKNAP. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 522. Fanny Belknap, widow of Charles 
Belknap, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $68.11. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $68.11. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Queens, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Charles Belknap, 
deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $68.11 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is sixty-eight 
dollars and eleven cents ($68.11). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



476 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

A. NELSON BELL. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 669. A. Nelson Bell v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1S87. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $166.' This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $35, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the pas^ment of the same, was $131. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county 
of Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $166 ; the amount paid claimant was $35 ; the amount suspended under the 
proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $131 (one hundred and thirty-one dollars). 

By the Coukt. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 






ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 477 

LOUISA C. BELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 100. Louisa C. Bell, widow of 
Edward B. Bell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent, Edward B. Bell, was serving as an officer in tbe 
Navy of the United States — to wit, as ensign — upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy was transmitted to tbe court by Senate resolution of tbe 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill INo. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on tbe 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and tbe Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

Tbe claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $S75.92. This action was reported to Congress by tbe Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 211, Fifty-first Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- 
ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid 
which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in 
the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
tbe basis of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in the United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Cqurt of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being 
tbe amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $875.92. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon tbe evidence and the report of tbe Treasury Department and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical 
person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in tbe 
petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said 
decision was. $875.92 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing ; the 
amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Septem- 
ber 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $875.92 (eight hundred and 
seventy-five dollars and dinety-two cents). 

* By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John ^Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



478 allowance of certain claims, 

caroline h. broadhead. 

L Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 503. Caroline H. Broadhead, widow of 
Edgar Broadhead, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1002, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $253.33. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom, which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims, upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States r. Strong and refused to allow any portion of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed 
in the Court of Claims. \ 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $253.33. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Orange, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Edgar Broadhead, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $253.33; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $253.33 (two hun- 
dred and fifty-three dollars and thirty-three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906.' 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, 



■ 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 479 

CHRISTOPHER BRUNS. 

[Court of Claims. No. 10942L. Christopher Bruns v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled ease, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5940 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved Mafch 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. George A. & Wm. B. King appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $174.24. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $32.87, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $141.37. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and resides in the county of 
New York in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $174.24; the amount paid claimant was $32.87; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $141.37 (one hundred and forty-one dollars and 
thirty-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Gowrt of Claims. 



480 ALLOWANCE OF -CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ALBERT BUHNER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 514. Albert Buhner v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the aft of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $65.17. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
Which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $65.17. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was 65.17. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $65.17 (sixty- 
five dollars and seventeen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 481 

HEIRS OF JOHN C. CARTER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093 — 4. Charles B. Carter, Elizabeth Crawford 
Bronson, and Lawrence C. Crawford, heirs at law of John C. Carter v. The United 
States.] • 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving -as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Na\y, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring 
Senate bill No. 7801, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

That John C. Carter served as a commander in the United States Navy on the 
receiving ship Vermont, and that during the period of such service he received 
shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances, to which claim- 
ants are entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme "Court of the 
United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). 

That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $372.91, is 
due to claimants, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of 
September 30, 1890. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of Washing- 
ton, D. C, and the State of New York, and claimants' decedent is the identical 
person who served as commander on the receiving ship Vermont from Novem- 
ber 23, 1864, to June 30, 1865. 

For said services, claimants' decedent was paid the shore pay and allowances 
of a commander, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers 
of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which 
claimants' decedent did receive, and sea pay and allowances which claimants 
claim to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress 
prohibited the payment of same. 

II. During the time claimants' decedent was attached to said receiving ship 
as aforesaid he had or was required to have his quarters and to mess on board 
said vessel, and was required to wear his uniform, and was not permitted by 
the rules of the service to live with his family. 

III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of a commander from 
November 23, 1864, to June 30, 1865, and the amount which claimants' decedent 
received for his service during that period is three hundred and seventy-two 
dollars and ninety-one cents ($372.91), no part of which has been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JliSSIE F. COLE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 591. Jessie F. Cole, sister of Frederick A. 
Howes, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement OF case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Nayy> was trans- 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 31 



482 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 
1906. • 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Yan Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $194.09. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said deci- 
sion in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim 
as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $194.09. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both- sides, makes the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Dutchess, in the State of New York, and is the sister of Frederick A. Howes, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States o. Strong (125 U. S.. 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $194.09 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $194.09 (one hundred 
and ninety-four dollars and nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. » 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN P. GILLIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 579. John P. Gillis, son of John P. Gillis, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 483 

mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th clay of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1900. 

Messrs. Penuebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $74.14. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six year prior to the date 
of the tiling of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $74.14. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of New York, in the State of New York, and is the son of John P. Gillis, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $74.14; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $74.14 (seventy-four dollars and fourteen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.1 John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANCIS C. GREEN. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 11919. Francis C. Green, executor of estate 
of Francis M. Green v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea and shore pay 
while claimant's father and the testator, Francis M. Green, was serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit. as master lieutenant and lieu- 



484 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

tenant-commander upon the receiving ship U. S. S. Ohio and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolutions on the 4th 
day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of April, 1906. 
J. M. Chamberlin, esq., appeared for the claimant, aud the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, appeared for the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. the United States, the sum thus allowed being 
$451.23. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury 
in House Executive Document 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appro- 
priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the 
following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Act ap- 
proved September 30, 1890. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 
Upon said readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's 
testator out of said appropriation, the sum of $77.99, being the amount to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of. the same, was $373.24. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the sanTe are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his father and the testator was 
an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is 
the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $451.23 ; the amount paid to claimant's testator was $77.99 ; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, 
and which still remains unpaid, is $373.24 (three hundred aud seventy-three 
dollars and twenty-four cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 9, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 485 

WILLIAM H. HALL AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 534. William H. Hall, Charles G. Hall, 
Eleanor Darling, and Alexander H. Wells, heirs at law of Michael Hall, deceased, v. 
The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent was serving- as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. ' 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. rennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $194.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
slate of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $194.60. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT* 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Kings, in the State of New York, and the heirs at law of Michael Hall, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of- the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $194.60 ; the amount suspended under the pr6viso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $194.60 (one 
hundred and ninety-four dollars and sixty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



486 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

HARRIET P. HIBBEN. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-462. Harriet F. Hibben, widow of 
Henry B. Hibben, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claimant in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States — to wit, as a chaplain, upon practice and other ships belong- 
ing to the Navy of the United States — was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 24th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the» provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of December, 
1904. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by L. A. Pradt, his assistant, under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 
That she is the widow of Henry B. Hibben, deceased, who was, during his life- 
time, a chaplain in the Navy of the United States ; that the decedent, during 
his lifetime, served under orders of the Navy Department from about July 9, 
1869, to May 19, 1870, on the school-ships attached to the Naval Academy, at 
Annapolis, t and from about September 22, 1870, to April 12, 1871, on board the 
U. S. S. Savannah ; that during the whole of said periods decedent was only 
allowed and paid the shore pay and allowances of his grade, arid that under the 
authority of the United States agamst Strong (125 U. S., 656) and other cases, 
he should have been paid the sea pay and allowances thereof. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of 
New York, and is the widow of Henry B. Hibben, deceased, who was in his life- 
time a chaplain in the United States Navy. 

During the decedent's service as such he served under orders of the Navy De- 
partment on board the school-ships at the Naval Academy, Annapolis, from July 
18, 1869, to May 19, 1S70, for which said service he was allowed and paid only 
the shore pay of his grade; and he also served under orders from the Navy 
Department from September 22, 1870, to April 12, 1871, on board the U. S. S. 
Savannah, and for this service also he was only paid the shore pay and allow- 
ances of his grade. 

Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States against Strong (125 U. S., 656), he should have been allowed and paid 
the sea pay and allowances of his grade for the said periods from July 9, 1S69. 
to May 19, 1870, and from September 22, 1870, to April 12, 1871. 

The difference between the pay and allowances so received by the claimant 
and the pay and allowances which he should have received under the decision 
of the Supreme Court above referred to is $722.45, which said amount remains 
unpaid. 

Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] * John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

ROBERT HUDSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 525. Robert Hudson v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an 'officer in the Navy of the United 
States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 487 

bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1S87. 

-The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $26.03. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted bs r the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $26.03. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and 
the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Onondaga, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $26.03 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $26.03 (twenty- 
six dollars aud three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRANCES R. HUNSICKER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 629. Frances R. Hunsicker, widow of 
Joseph L. Hunsicker, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the • 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of Juue, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. _!£ 



488 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th clay of October, 
3 906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $287.67. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. , In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation. is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimant out of 'said appropriation, the sum of $82.19, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, -1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $205.48. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. . • 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Erie, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Joseph L. Hunsicker, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 165), was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $287.67 ; the amount paid claimant was $82.19 ; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still re- 
mains unpaid, is $205.4S (two hundred and five dollars and forty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 19, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CAROLINE H. LILLIE AND JULIA W. L. SYMINGTON, EXECUTRIXES. 

[Court of Claims. No. 10942K. Caroline H. Lillie and Julia W. L. Symington, execu- 
trixes of the estate of A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, v. the United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 



ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 489 

mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. George A. & Wrn. B. King appeared for A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, and 
the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his 
direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United 
States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $1,071.78. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
and others of like character Congress made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to 
A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, out of said appropriation, the sum of $957.81, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said 
proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, 
would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong 
had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $113.97. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county 
of New York, in the State of New York, and are the executrixes of the estate of 
A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted 
by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due A. B. H. Lillie by the accounting officers under said 
decision was $1,071.78 ; the amount paid A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, was $957.81 ; 
the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $113.97 (one hundred and 
thirteen dollars and ninety-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



490 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

GILBERT L. McGOWAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 92. Gilbert L. McGowan v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States — to wit, as mate — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, 
was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $23.25. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Con- 
gress, first session. In appropriation for such allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress provided that no part of any of these claims should be 
paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition 
in the Court of Claims upon which the judgement was rendered, which being 
affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as 
the basis of allowance of such claims. 

Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and 
then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have 
been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $23.25. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy 
thereof, and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person 
whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting 
officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant under said decision was $23.25 ; the amount 
paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act 
of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is 
twenty-three dollars and twenty-five cents ($23.25). 



By the Court. 



Filed November 12, 1906. 



A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 






ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 491 

ROBERT H. McLEAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-501. Robert H. McLean v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving ;is an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $112.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six shears prior to July 17, 1886, the crate on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16. 1880. and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision iu United States v. Strong had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same was $112.60. 

' Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same protiso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
New York, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $112.60. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $112.60 (one hundred 
and twelve dollars and sixty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



492 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

E. T. T. MARSH. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942; C. and F. No. 36. E. T. T. 
Marsh v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claimant in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant, B. T. T. Marsh, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting assistant surgeon upon receiving 
and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for 
proceedings and report under tbe provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 
1906. Messrs, Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. A r an Orsdel, esq., bis assistant, and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in bis petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was- previously presented to tbe proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under tbe decision of this court and of tbe Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. Tbe United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $54.58. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 199, Fiftieth Congress, first 
session, pages 36-3S. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to, which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition iu the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 
(Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to Juty 16, 1S80, aud that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in The United States agaiust Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $54.58. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy 
thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 659), was adjusted by the accounting 
officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $54.58; the amount paid claimant was nothing: the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid is $54.58 (fifty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed March 26, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 493 

MARY H. NICHOLSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 500. Mary H. Nicholson, widow of James 
W. A. Nicholson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5049 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General^ 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting others of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The L T nited States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed" being $339.79. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $60.50, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16. 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880. and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong, had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $273.29. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
New York, in the State of New York, and is the widow of James W. A. 
Nicholson, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $339.79: the amount paid claimant was $66.50; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which 
still remains unpaid, is $273.29 (two hundred and seventy-three dollars and 
twenty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as tiled by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

L seat.. J John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



494 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

EBENEZER S. PRIME, 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 492. Ebenezer S. Prime v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled ease, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to tbe Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th clay of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to tbe proper accounting officers of tbe 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the Uuited 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), tlie sum thus 
allowed being $387.90. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $62.70, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16. 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $325.20. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Suffolk, in the State of New York, and is the Ebenezer S. Prime whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $387.90; the amount paid claimant was $62.70: the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2. 1889, and which still re- 
mains unpaid, is $325.20 (three hundred and twenty-five dollars and twenty 
cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April. 1906. 

[seal.1 John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 495 

LOUISA P. SEAMAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10042. C. & F., No. 41. Louisa P. Seaman, widow 
of Stephen Seaman, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Stephen Seaman, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy, to wit, a sailmaker, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the 
Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of February, 
1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $465.68. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in House Executive Document 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued 
more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims 
upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme 
Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of 
such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $465.68. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, under the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656*) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $465,68 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is four hundred 
and sixty-five dollars and sixty-eight cents ($465.68). 

By the Cottbt. 

Filed February 20, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of February, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



496 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

JOHN M. STEELE. 
[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 497. John M. Steele v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennybaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $266.30. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $241.10 being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $25.20. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continue 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Ceurt of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $266.30 ; the amount paid claimant was $241.10 ; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $25.20 (twenty-five dollars and twenty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 497 

MARTHA D. STURGIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 604. Martha D. Sturgis, daughter of 
Samuel F. Hazzard, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and sbore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of- June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Penuebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General. 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $241.65. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the 
judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the" accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $241.65. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of New York, in the State of New York, and is the daughter of Samuel F. Kaz- 
zard, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $241.65; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30. 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $241.65 (two 
hundred and forty-one dollars and sixty-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 32 



498 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

ELEANOR R. SWAN AND CHARLES B. SWAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10942, C. & F. No. 110. Eleanor R. Swan and 
Charles B. Swan, heirs at law of Robert Swan, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimants' decedent, Robert Swan, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon, upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 
lution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceed- 
ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and has been audited by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- 
lowed being $233.42. In appropriating for allowance of like character Congress 
provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued 
more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims 
upon which the judgment is rendered which, being affirmed by the Supreme 
Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of 
such claims. 

The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not pro- 
hibited the paymeiit of the same was $233.42. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, aud the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and are the 
identical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, as alleged in petition. 

The amount due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was 
$233.42. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- 
proved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and 
thirty-three dollars and forty-two cents ($233.42). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph,. 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 499 

EDWARD D. TAUSSIG. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 549. Edward D. Taussig v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1S87. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $33.97. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of 
the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the pajonent of the same, was $33.97. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to such provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $33.97. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved March 2, 1SS9, and which still remains unpaid, is $33.97 (thirty-three 
dollars and ninety-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.1 John Randolph. 

Assistant, Clerk, Court of Claims. 



500 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

HOBART L. TREMAIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 494. Hobart L. Tremain v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 
Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $295.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference, in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $295.89. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Sullivan, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 
v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $295.89 ; the amount paid claimant was nothing ; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which 
still remains unpaid, is $295.89 (two hundred and ninety-five dollars and eighty- 
nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 501 

HENRIETTA L. TUCKER. 

I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. No. 44. Henrietta L. Tucker, 
widow of Thomas B. Tucker, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's deceased husband, Thomas B. Tucker, was serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as ensign, upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate res- 
olution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought, to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $796.63. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in House Executive Document 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 
(Act approved September 30, 1S90.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $796.63. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to alow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon such evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S.. 656), was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $796.63; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing: the amouut sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890. 



502 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIF CLAIMS. 

and which still remains unpaid is $796.63 (seven hundred and ninety-six dollars 
and sixty-three cents.) 

By the Court. 
Filed April 9, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

IRA C. WHITEHEAD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 511. Ira C. Whitehead v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $203.06. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said" allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $54.30, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $148.76. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Orange, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 503 

v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $203.06 ; the amount paid claimant was $54.30 ; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which 
still remains unpaid is $148.76 (one hundred and forty-eight dollars and seventy- 
six cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FREDERICK W. WUNDERLICH. 

I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F„ No. 124. Frederick W. Wunderlich 

v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim for the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, to wit, as mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, 
was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4h day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court aDd of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $111.01. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second 
session. In appropriation for such allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which 
accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court 
of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the 
Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of 
allowance of such claims. 

Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the same 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $52.97, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $58.04. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 



504 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy 
thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant under said decision was $111.01 ; the amount 
paid claimant was $52.97; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act 
of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is 
fifty-eight dollars and four cents ($58.04). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHARLES A. AND ISABELLE G. WHITE. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. and F." 196, Charles A. White 
and Isabelle G. White, sole heirs at law of Leverett H. White, deceased, v. The United 
States. 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent, Leverett H .White, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting ensign upon receiving and other 
ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and 
report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants, in their petition, make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- 
lowed being $250.87. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first 
session. In appropriating fof said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
(if Claims. Up5n such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same $520.87. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 505 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after fuH'consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States and are residents of New York 
and New Jersey, respectively, and are the sole heirs of Leverett H. White, 
whose claims under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) were adjusted by the accounting offi- 
cers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $250.87; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred 
and fifty dollars and eighty-seven cents ($250.87). 

By the Coukt. 

Filed February 17, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

ELIZABETH M. PITKIN AND CARRIE PITKIN McDOWELL. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, 13093-14. Elizabeth M. Pitkin and Carrie 
Pitkin McDowell, heirs of Henry S. Pitkin, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate 
bill No. 7801, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th dav of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interest of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

That Henry S. Pitkin served as an assistant surgeon in the United States 
Navy on the receiving ships North Carolina and Vermont, and that during the 
period of such service he received shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay 
and allowances to which he was entitled under the decision of this court and 
the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong 
(125 U. S., 656). 

That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $382.21, 
is due to claimants, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act 
of September 30, 1890. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the State 
of New York, and claimants' decedent is the identical person who served as an 
assistant surgeon on the receiving ship North Carolina from August 12, 1862, 
to February 25, 1863, and on the receiving ship Vermont from January 14, 1871, 
to October 10, 1871. 

For said service claimants' decedent has been paid the shore pay and allow- 
ances of an assistant surgeon, and no claim has ever been presented to the ac- 
counting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shorejmy and allow- 



506 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

ances, which he received, and sea pay and allowances, which claimants claim 
to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), had not Congress pro- 
hibited the payment of same. 

II. During the time claimants' decedent was attached to said receiving ships 
as aforesaid he had and was required to have his quarters and to mess on board 
said vessel, and was required to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the 
rules of the service to live with his family. 

III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an assistant sur- 
geon for the periods from August 12, 1862, to February 25, 1863, and from Janu- 
ary 14, 1871, to October 10, 1871, and the amount which claimants' decedent has 
received for his service during that period is three hundred and eighty-two dol- 
lars and twenty -one cents ($382.21), no part of which has been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 17, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 
STEPHEN A. NORFLEET, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-510. Stephen A. Norfleet, administrator 
of Ernest Norfleet, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by sueh accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $76.16. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid 
to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $22.46, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $53.70. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 507 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the comity of 
Bertie, in the State of North Carolina, and is the administrator of Ernest Nor- 
fleet, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $76.16; the amount paid claimant was $22.46; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which 
still remains unpaid is $53.70 (fifty-three dollars and seventy cents). 

By the Coukt. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

AUGUSTUS RODNEY MACDONOUGH, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 49. Augustus Rodney 
Macdonough, administrator of Charles S. McDonough, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Charles S. McDonough, was serving as an officer 
in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant, upon receiving and other 
.ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress* approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $651.37. 

This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in 
Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In ap- 
propriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made 
the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 



508 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS." 

paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $651.37. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of North Carolina, and is the 
identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $651.37; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $651.37 (six 
hundred and fifty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

OHIO. 

L. C. BARCLAY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 542. L. C. Barclay, granddaughter of J. 
O'Connor Barclay, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. the United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $119.45. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 509 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accouutiug officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under tbe decision in United States against Strong, had Con- 
gress uot prohibited the payment of the same, was $119.45. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury,. pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, and is the granddaughter of J. O'Connor Barclay, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 65G) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $119.45; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $119.45 (one 
hundred and nineteen dollars and forty-five cents). 

By the Couet. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

JAMES F. FITZHUGH, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. — Sub. R. R. M. James F. Fitzhugh, ad- 
ministrator of William E. Fitzhugh, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for the difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimant's intestate, William E._ Fitzhugh, commodore, U. S. 
Navy, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving 
and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 18S7. 

Tbe case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of April, 1906. 

Richard R. McMahon appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by 
J. A. Tan Orsdel, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, appeared for the defense an*] 
protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- 
lowed being $7,279.03. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted 
bv the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 



510 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant's intestate out of said appropriation, the sum of $5,597.66, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's intestate would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $1,681.37. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Clinton, in the State of Ohio, and is the administrator of the estate of Wil- 
liam E. Fitzhugh, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was ad- 
justed by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as 
alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $7,279.03; the amount paid claimant was $5,597.66 ;• the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 934), 
and which still remains unpaid is $1,681.37 (sixteen hundred and eighty-one 
dollars and thirty-seven cents). 

By the Coubt. 

Filed April 9, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY S. FRANKLIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-477. Mary S. Franklin, widow of Gustavus 
S. Franklin, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $324.31. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowances 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 511 

date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered," which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed 
in the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $824.31. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Ross, in the State of Ohio, and is the widow of Gustavus S. Franklin, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $324.31 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $324.31 (three 
hundred and twenty-four dollars and thirty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHARLES B. GILMORE, BROTHER OF FERNANDO P. GILMORE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-713. Charles B. Gilmore, brother of Fer 
nando P. Gilmore, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day o'f June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of Januarv, 
1908. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 
That he is the brother of Fernando P. Gilmore, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $60.44. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
ethers of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 



512 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused, to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and 
then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $16.33, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $60.44. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, and is the brother of Fernando P. Gilmore, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $60.44 ; the amount paid claimant was $16.33 ; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1S89, and which still re- 
mains unpaid is $44.11 (forty-four dollars and eleven cents). 

By the Couet. 

Filed January 13, 190S. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 14th day of January, 190S. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

MRS. GEORGE C. HAGAN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-502. Mrs. George C. Hagan, widow (re- 
married) of John G. Mitchell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

Tbis claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed . by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $101.88. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 513 

retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance 
(and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $101.88. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Huron, in the State of Ohio, and is the widow (remarried) of John G. Mitchell, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United Slates v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $101.8S ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $101.88 (one hundred 
and one dollars and eighty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

NOPIE M. LE BRETON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 532. Nopie M. Le Breton, daughter of 
David McDougal, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution, on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $49.75. The action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 33 



514 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (ajtd 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant -to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $49.75. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Ross, in the State of Ohio, and is the daughter of David M. McDougal, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $49.75 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $49.75 (forty- 
nine dollars and seventy-five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

FRED B. McCONNELL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C.and P. No. 37. Fred B. McConnell, heir 
at law of Rufus S. McConnell, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claimant in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Rufus S. McConnell, was "serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, assistant paymaster and pay- 
master, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate 
bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under tbe provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing -on its merits on the 22d day of March, 
3906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of tin's court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S,, 656), the sum thus 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 515 

allowed being $1,585.82. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, 
second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- 
acter), Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

"Act approved March 2, 1S89." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States' v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due aud then paid 
to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $1,019.79, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $566.03. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Ohio, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S. 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount fofmd due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $1,585.82: the amount paid claimant's decedeut was $1,019.79; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2. 1889, 
and which still remains unpaid, is $566.03 (five hundred and sixty-six dollars 
and three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed March 26, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 28th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. 

MARY P. SHIRLEY, EXECUTRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 ; C. & F., No. 116. Mary P. Shirley, execu- 
trix of estate of James R. Shirley, only child of Paul Shirley, deceased, v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent, Paul Shirley, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, a commander, upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Nav-y, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1!)02, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st da3* of January, 
1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attomey-Generai], 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. — 



516 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: 

Thp clpun was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $1,451.27. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first ses- 
sion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Con- 
gress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which 
accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and 
then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $283.84, 
being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said 
proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers' also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,167.43. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent's father was an 
officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Ohio, and is the identi- 
cal person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the peti- 
tion. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $1,451.27; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $283.84; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, 
and which still remains unpaid, is eleven hundred sixty-seven dollars and forty- 
three cents ($1,167.43). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 21, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARIA S. WRIGHT. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 507. Maria S. Wright, sister of Arthur H. 
Wright, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's brother was serving as an officer in the Navy "of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for .proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 



ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 517 

The case was brought to a hearing ou its merits ou the 10th day of April, 100U. 

Messrs. Peimebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $23.29. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to- said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, tbe date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $23.29. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the. Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Franklin, in the State of Ohio, and is the sister of Arthur H. Wright, deceased, 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $23.29; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $23.29 (twenty- 
three dollars and twenty-nine cents). 

By the Couet. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

OREGON. 

HEIRS OF DANIEL W. SAMPSON. 

I Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 13321. George H. Sampson, 
Leander P. Sampson, Ellias S. Willis, Henry P. Willis, James M. Willis, jr., and Maria 
J. Akin, heirs at law of Daniel W. Sampson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the United States 
Navy, upon receiving ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 
by Senate resolution on the 12th day of February, 1908, referring Senate bill 



518 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

No. 5177 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th dav of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen era 1, 
by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : ' 

That they are the heirs at law of Daniel W. Sampson, deceased, who served 
in his lifetime as mate, United States Navy, on the receiving ship Ohio, and that 
during that period of such service he received shore-duty pay and allowance in- 
stead of sea pay and allowances, to which he was entitled under the decision of 
this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). 

That the difference between sea pay and shore pay for decedent's service on 
receiving ship aforesaid is $036.68, and that payment of same has been pro- 
hibited by the act of September 30. 1800. 

The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. That the claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the 
States of New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, and are the heirs at law of 
Daniel W. Sampson, deceased, who served as mate on the receiving ship Ohio 
from March 9, 1870, to April 23, 1873. 

II. For said service said decedent has been paid the shore pay and allowances 
of his grade, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of 
the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has 
received, and sea pay and allowances, which claimants allege he would have 
been entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress pro- 
hibited the payment of same. 

III. It further appears that during the time claimants' decedent was attached 
to said receiving ship as aforesaid he was required to have his quarters and to 
mess on board said vessel, to wear his uniform, and was not permitted to live 
with his family. 

IV. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of a mate in the 
United States Navy for the period from March 9, 1870, to April 23, 1873, and 
the amount which said decedent received for his services during that period, is 
nine hundred and thirty-six dollars and sixty-eight cents ($936.68), no part of 
which has been paid. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 17, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 
MARGARETTA D. ABBEY AND OTHER HEIRS OF HENRY LELAR. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. 167. Margaretta D. Abbey, 
Henry Lelar, jr., William D. Lelar, Mary D. Pierce, and Ellen D. Lelar, children and 
sole heirs at law of Henry Lelar, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay, whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other ships belonging 
to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 
1908. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 519 

Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- 
General, by John Q. Thompson, his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $312.37. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- 
acter) Congress made the following proviso: 

" Tbat no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim."' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimants 1 decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $312.37. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the sa'id proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States and their decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and are the 
identical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $312.37, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $312.37 (three 
hundred and twelve dollars and thirty-seven cents). 

By the Couet. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

RICHARD ASHBRIDGE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 541. Richard Ashbridge v. The United 

States.] 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 



520 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $364.93. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $315.62, being the amount which 
accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $49.31. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $364.93 ; the amount paid claimant was $315.62, the amount suspended un- 
der the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $49.31 (forty-nine dollars and thirty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

GEORGIANA BONSALL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 551. Georgiana Bonsall, widow of Edward 
Bonsall, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement op case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902. referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 521 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $75.07. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character ) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $75.07. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Delaware, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of Edward Bonsall, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $75.07; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid, is $75.07 (seventy-five dollars and seven cents). 

By the Coukt. 
Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MATTIE H. CHAPLIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 65. Mattie H. Chaplin v. The 

United States.] 

statement of Case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's deceased husband, J. Crossan Chaplin, was serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant, upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 



522 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

lution on the 1st day of March, 1906, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1S87. 

The case. was brought to a hearing on its merits on, the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $102.50. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document Xo. 144, Fifty-first Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- 
ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid 
which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong' v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant's deceased husband out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, 
being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said 
proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $102.50. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously, refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her deceased husband was an 
officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and is 
the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in 
the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $102.50; the amount paid claimant's deceased husband was nothing; 
the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- 
tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and two dollars 
and fifty cents ($102.50). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 523 

WILLIAM CUDDY. 

(.Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 610. William Cuddy v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant- was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits oa the 22d day of October, 
1P0G. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-! : nevnl. 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
.States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $74.79. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" TI:at no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
claim accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have 'been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $74.79. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person, whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $74.79: the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- 
proved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $74.79 (seventy-four 
dollars and seventy-nine cents). • 

By the Coukt. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



524 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

HEIRS OF LAUST E. DEGN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 70. William L. Degn, Annette 
N. Degn McCoy, Minnie H. Degn Wilson, and Albert L. Degn, heirs to Laust E. Degn, 
v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimants' decedent, Laust E. Degn, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and other 
ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 12th day of March, 1906, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings 
and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1 887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the stun thus 
allowed being .$342.16. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
ofthe Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of said charac- 
ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid 
which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered,- which being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $342.16. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was au officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and are the iden- 
tical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S.,656) was adjusted by the accounting 
officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the. accounting officers under said decision 
was $342.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892,' and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and 
forty -two dollars and sixteen cents ($342.16). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 525 

WALTER B. DICK. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 46. Walter B. Dick v. 

The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
to-wit, an assistant surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the 
Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 
1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $93.65. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, 
second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- 
acter) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on whicb 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and 
then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $29.34, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $64.31. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of 
Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 
656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- 
priated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $93.65 : the amount paid claimant was $29.34 ; the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress, approved September 30, 1890, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $64.31 (sixty-four dollars and thirty-one cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 21st day of" April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



526 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

MICHAEL C. DRENNAN. 

L Court of Claims. Michael C. Drennan v. The United States. Congressional, No. 

10942 — 472.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimant, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United 
States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted 
to the court by Senate resolution on the 14th day of June, 1902, referring Sen- 
ate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- 
gress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1C06. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Yau Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $24.59. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court 'of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopt- 
ed by the accounting officers as the basis for the. allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $8.70, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $15.89. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and 
the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are 
still unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Northampton, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $24.59 : the amount paid claimant was $S.70 : the amount suspended under 
the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1S89, and which still re- 
mains unpaid, is $15.S9 (fifteen dollars and eighty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 527 

EXECUTOR OF HENRY ETTING. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 10942-463. The Pennsylvania Company for 
insurance on lives and granting annuities, executor of Henry Etting, deceased, v. The 
United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, to wit, a lieutenant, upon receiving and other ships, belonging to 
the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of 
June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the 
provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of December, 
1905. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in its petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $665.86. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims 
to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued 
more than six years prior to the date of the tiling of the petition in the Court of 
Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the 
Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the 
allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant nothing out of said appropriation, and nothing, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to- July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $665.86. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the executor of Henry 
Etting, deceased, whose claim, under decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in 
the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said 
decision was $665.86, and the amount paid claimant was nothing. The amount 
suspended under the proviso to tbe act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, 
and which still remains unpaid is $665.S6 (six hundred and sixty -five dollars 
and eighty-six cents). 

Filed December 18, 1905. 

A true copy of the finding of facts as filed by the court. 

Test this 5th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Cowt of Claims. 



528 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ELLEN L. FAUNCE. 

{Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 82. Ellen L. Faunce, widow of 
Peter Faunce, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent, Peter Fannce, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign, upon receiving and other ships be- 
longing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $401.76. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which 
accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court 
of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by 
the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of 
allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum- of $110.67, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $291.09. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $401.76; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $110.67; the 
amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 
30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $291.09 (two hundred and ninety- 
one dollars and nine cents). 

By the Court. 
• Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 529 

MARGARET A. HOFFNER, WIDOW OF RICHARD J. HOFFNER. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 106. Margaret A. Hoffner, 
widow of Richard J. Hoffner, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedeut, Richard J. Hoffner, was serving as an officer of 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of April, 1907. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

The claim was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 
$255. 7S. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury 
in House Ex. Doc. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriation for 
said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of 
any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior 
to the date of filing the petition in the Court of 'Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 1, 1880, and to which said proviso did 
not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $255.78. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amouut found due claimant Uy the accounting officers, under said decision, 
was $255.7S ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing ; the amount 
suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, 
and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred fifty-five dollars and seventy- 
eight cents ($255.78). 

By the Couet. 

Filed April 8, 1907. 

A true copy. , 

Test this 10th day of April, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 34 



530 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

SAMUEL W. LATTA. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 499. Samuel W. Latta v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th dav of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $153.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriations. In appropriating for such allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same has been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant, out of said appropriation, the sum of $48.21, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 18S0, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $105.68. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 

was $153.89; the amount paid claimant was $48.21; the amount suspended 

under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2. 1SS9, and which 

still remains unpaid, is $105.68 (one hundred and five dollars and sixty-eight 

cents). „ 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copv of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 531 

JESSIE E. LINNEKIN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 41. Jessie E. Linnekin, heir 
at law of Thomas J. Linnekin, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent, Thomas J. Linnekin, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other 
ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and 
report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of May, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $154.92. This action was reported. to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, 
first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress made the following proviso : 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

"Act approved September 30, 1890." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1850, and to which- said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1820, and that to which claimant would have been en- 
titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $154.92. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identi- 
cal person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $154.92 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress, ap- 
proved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $154.92 (one hun- 
dred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-two cents). 

By the Couet. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



532 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

MARY McLEOD. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942. C. & F. 1S8. Mary McLeod, widow of 
Norman McLeod v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Norman McLeod, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5049 for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d dav of February, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the 
sum thus allowed being $326.75. This action was reported to Congress by the 
Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first 
Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress made the following proviso: 

"That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim fof such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to-be due and then paid 
to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $326.75. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the 
. accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her deceased husband was an 
officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is 
the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted 
by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $326.75; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred 
and twenty-six dollars and seventy-five cents ($326.75). 

By the Court. 

Filed February 10, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of February, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 533 

MARY E. MAXWELL AND BLANCHE M. LEWIS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 530. Mary E. Maxwell and Blanche M. 
Lewis, daughters of James McClelland, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim iu the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay. and shore 
pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the 
act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1900. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared 
for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $684.25. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for tbe allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $684.25. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Northampton, in the State of Pennsylvania, and are the children of James 
McClelland, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $684.25 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of 
Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is six 
hundred and eighty-four dollars and twenty-five cents ($684.25). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court, of Claims. 



534 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

GEORGIA E. MORRISON, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

[In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12642. D. and M. No. 1. Georgia B. Mor- 
rison, administratrix of George Smith, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, George Smith, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, boatswain, upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of January, 
1907. 

Messrs. Dudley & Michener appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by William M. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers, under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum 
thus allowed being $553.48. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Con- 
gress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which judgment 
was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

"Act approved September 30, 1890." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States , against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $553.48. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- 
tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is tbe iden- 
tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125, U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $553.48; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, 
and which still remains unpaid, is $553.48 (five hundred and fifty-three dollars 
and forty-eight cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 535 

REBECCA P. NIELDS, EXECUTRIX. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F., No. 63. Rebecca P. Nields, 
executrix of Henry C. Nields, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

Tlie claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's deceased husband, Henry C. Nields, was serving as an officer 
in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant-commander, upon receiving 
and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate 
resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceed- 
ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1S87. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren and Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed bj such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S. 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $967.50. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second ses- 
sion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Con- 
gress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of 
the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.'' (Act approved 
September 30, 1890.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition 
in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 
Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's 
decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $7.50, being the amount to which 
said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $960. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in United States v. Stroug (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting offi- 
cers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $967.50 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $7,50 ; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, 
and which still remains unpaid, is $960 (nine hundred and sixty dollars). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 9, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



536 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ADELAIDE R. SHAW. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 471. Adelaide R. Shaw, widow of Samuel 
F. Shaw, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $886.17. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefi'om which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon wbich the 
judgment was rendered, which being affirmed bj the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $176.44, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $659.73. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of Samuel F. 
Shaw, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in 
the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $836.17; the amount paid claimant was $176.44; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $659.73 (six hundred and fifty-nine dollars and seventy-three 
cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 18th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 537 

JOHN C. SPEAR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10942 M. and C. John C. Spear v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant, John C. Spear, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions- of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 
1905. Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by Hon. L. A. Pradt, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers "of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $232.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, 
second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- 
ter) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 
(Act approved March 2, 18S9.) 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers found that the 
difference in pay between that actually received by said claimant, John C. 
Spear, and that pay to which he would have been entitled under the decision in 
the case of United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited payment 
of the same, was $232.60. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Montgomery, State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical Jobn C. Spear whose 
claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in case of 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers 
and reported to Congress, as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
is two hundred thirty-two dollars and sixty cents ($232.60) which still remains- 
unpaid. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 4, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.. 



538 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ROBERT STEEL. 

Iln the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. 159. Robert Steel v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant, Robert Steel, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, to wit, a mate upon receiving and other ships belonging to the 
Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 
1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 
1908. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of tbe Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $158.83. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 171, Fifty-first Congress, 
second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- 
acter) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
•decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid 
to claimant, out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $15S.83. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy 
thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $158.83; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $158.83 (one 
hundred and fifty-eight dollars and eighty -three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 539 

ELIZABETH C. VAN REED. 

tin the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F. No. 58. Elizabeth C. Van 
Reed, heir-at-law of George Cochran, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, George Cochran, was serving as an officer in the 
Navy of the United States, to wit, a paymaster, upon receiving and other ships 
belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 
4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and*report 
under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $292.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second 
session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims. 
Act approved March 2, 1889. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on wbich the 
petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to 
claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $78.15, being the 
amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso 
did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $214.47. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of tbe Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimaut is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the 
identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $292.60; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $7S,13; the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, 



540 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

and which still remains unpaid, is $214.47 (two hundred and fourteen dollars 
and forty-seven cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. 

PHOEBE N. VER MEULEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 569. Phoebe N. Ver Meulen, widow of 
Edmund C. Ver Meulen, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 
3906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $55.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $55.89. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of Edmund C. 
Ver Meulen, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in 
the petition. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 541 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $55.80; the amount paid claimant was nothing, the amount sus- 
pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and 
which still remains unpaid, .$55.89 (fifty-five dollars and eighty-nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 23, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 28th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

HENRY WHELEN. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 619. Henry Whelen v. The United States | 
, STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 18S7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $158.12. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant would have been enti- 
tled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- 
hibited the payment of the same, was $158.12. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still un- 
paid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and* is the identical person 
whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, 
reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 



542 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The amount found clue claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $158.12; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $158.12 (one hundred 
and fifty-eight dollars and twelve cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FRED WHITE. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 97. Fred White, son and heir 
at law of Edward W. White, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent, Edward W. White, was serving as an officer in 
the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and other 
ships belongiug to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution 
on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and 
report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3. 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition make substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department for settlement and has been audited by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $652.75. In appropriating for allowance of like character Congress pro- 
vided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more 
than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims 
upon which the judgment is rendered which, being affirmed by the Supreme 
Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of 
such claims. 

The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received 
prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled 
under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $652.75. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent an officer in the 
Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical 
person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, as alleged in petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $652.75; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved July 28, 1S92, and which still remains unpaid, is six hundred fifty-two 
dollars and seventy-five cents ($652.75). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 543 

P. FENDALL YOUNG, EXECUTOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 529. P. Fendall Young, executor of Wil- 
liam S. Young, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

I 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 594!) for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of •,. 

1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Qeneral, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $231.05. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same was $231.05. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the executor of William S. 
Young, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $231.05. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $231.05 (two 
hundred and thirty-one dollars and five cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[SEAL.l John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



544 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

RHODE ISLAND. 
THOMAS DUNN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 480. Thomas Dunn, administrator of 
Charles Hunter, deceased, v. The United States.] 

« 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was 
transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of 
the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- 
peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $41.20. This action, was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable 
shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
receiA*ed prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $41.20. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Newport, in the State of Rhode Island, and is the administrator of Charles 
Hunter, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 
- The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $41.20. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of 
Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is 
$41.20 (forty -one dollars and twenty cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 545 

VIRGINIA. 
MARGARET A. BLACKMORE, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES F. GUILLON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 10942-567. Margaret A. Blackmore, dasgn- 
ter of Charles F. Guillon, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegation : 
That she is the daughter of Charles F. Guillon, deceased. 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $353.96. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of 
like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.*' 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $12S.40, being the amount which 
accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $225.56. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Elizabeth City, in the State of Virginia, and is the daughter of Charles G. Guil- 
lon, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $353.96; the amount paid claimant was $128.40; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 35 



546 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

remains unpaid is two hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty-six cents 
($225.56). 

By the Court. 
Filed March 11, 1907. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 13th day of March, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY J. FROTHINGHAM, MARGARET E. CAVENDY, AND MARY F. COY, 
HEIRS OF EDWARD CAVENDY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 64. Mary J. Frothingham, 
Margaret B. Cavendy, and Mary F. Coy, heirs-at-law of Edward Cavendy, v. The United 
States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimants' decedent, Edward Cavendy, was serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiv- 
ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by 
Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for 
proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of May, 1906. 

Messrs. Coldren and Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $353.59. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, 
first session. In the appropriation for said allowance (and others of like char- 
acter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid 
which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the 
Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed 
by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis 
of allowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $353.59. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimants are citizens of the United States and their decedent was an officer 
in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Virginia, and said decedent 
is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 547 

of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted 
by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said deci- 
sion was $353.59. The amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing. The 
amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 
1892, and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and fifty-three dollars 
and fifty-nine cents ($353.59). 

By the Court. 

Filed May 15, 1907. 

. A true copy. 
Test this 16th day of May, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JAMES M. ODEND'HAL. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 653. James M. Odend'hal, administrator 
of John W. Odend'hal, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th <1ay of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting offiecrs of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $1,101.91. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment 
was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by 
the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition 
in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims, 
Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant 
out of said appropriation the sum of $430.68, being the amount which accrued 
subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same, was $671.23. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 



548 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the administrator of John W. Odend'hal, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $1,101.91; the amount paid claimant was $430.68; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which still 
remains unpaid is $671.23 (six hundred and seventy-one dollars and twenty- 
three cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 19, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 19th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

MARY E. R. SMITH. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 519. Mary E. R. Smith, widow (remar- 
ried) of Emory H. Taunt, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the — ■ — day of , 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $105.20. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $105.20. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 549 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Culpeper, in the State of Virginia, and is the widow of Emory H. Taunt, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- 
ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $105.20 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- 
proved March 2, 1S89, and which still remains unpaid, is $105.20 (one hundred 
and five dollars and twenty cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

H. S. HERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 547. H. S. Herman, administrator of 
William M. King, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $207.99. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted 
by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay. as the same had been settled under said de- 
cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was' filed in the Court of 
Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $207.99. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 



550 • ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the administrator of William M. King, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $207.99 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred 
and seven dollars and ninety-nine cents ($207.99). 

Br the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

mary s. Mcintosh and Elizabeth s. taylor. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 555. Mary S. Mcintosh and Elizabeth S. 
Taylor, children of John L. Saunders, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented tb the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $210. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like 
character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is 
applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the 
judgment was rendered, which beins affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimants' decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had 
Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $210. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 551 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and are the children of John L. Saunders, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $210; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1889. and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred 
and ten dollars ($210). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

GEORGE P. BARNES. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 564. George P. Barnes v. The United 

States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serviug as an officer in the Navy of the United States 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the 
^ourt by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $569.58. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886,. the date on which the 
petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 
of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid 
to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $209.31, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $160.27. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the_>anie are still 
unpaid. 



552 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the identical person whose claim 
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to 
Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $369.58; the amount paid claimant was $209.31; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still 
remains unpaid, is $160.27 (one hundred and sixty dollars and twenty-seven 
cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

CHARLES SCHROEDER, ADMINISTRATOR. 

[Court of Claims. No. 11911, Congressional. Charles Schroeder, administrator of the 
estate of Samuel G. City, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay while claimant's decedent was serving as a gunner in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the llth day of December, 
1905. 

Messrs. Lyon & Lyon appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- 
fense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such officers under 
the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), in the sum of $332.72. 
This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in 
House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session, page 58. 
In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress 
made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance. 

"Act approved March 2, 1889." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in the Strong case, and refused to allow any portion of said claim, it 
having accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong was filed in the Court of Claims. 

Upon such readjustment the accounting officers found that the difference in 
pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's 
decedent would haA^e been entitled under the decision in the United States v. 
Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $332.72. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said proviso, have continuously 
refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 



ALLOWANCE Or CERTAIN CLAIMS. 553 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, 
and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Norfolk, in 
the State of Virginia, and is the administrator of the estate of Samuel G. City, 
deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by 
the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged 
in the petition. 

The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said 
decision was $332.72, and the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of 
Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $332.72. 

By the Coukt. 

Filed December 18, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JOHN T. NEWTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-711. John T. Newton v. The United States.} 

statement of case. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, 
upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the 
court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 
No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 
1908. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $226.57. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others 
of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which 
accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- 
tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of 
Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to 
claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $160.27, being the amount which 
accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not 
prohibited the payment of the same, was $66.30. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the^same are still 
unpaid. 



554 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of 
Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the identical person whose claim under 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. 
Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Con- 
gress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $226.57; the amount paid claimant was $160.27; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which 
still remains unpaid, is $66.30 (sixty-six dollars and thirty cents). 

By the Court. 
Filed January 13, 1908. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 14th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

WEST VIRGINIA. 

HARRIET S. LYETH, ADMINISTRATRIX. 

I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 107. Harriet S. Lyeth, ad- 
ministratrix of Clinton H. Lyeth, deceased, v. The United States.] 

statement of case. 

The claimant in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Clinton H. Lyeth, was serving as an 
officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign, upon receiving and 
other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 
lution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- 
ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 
3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Coldren & Fenning . appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting 
officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $202.19. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first 
session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) 
Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which 
accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court 
of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered which, being affirmed by the 
Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of al- 
lowance of such claims. 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 
the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Ctourt of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being 
the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- 
viso did not relate. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 555 

The accounting officer also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been 
entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $202.19. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after full consideration, makes the following 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in 
the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of West Virginia, and is the iden- 
tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $202.19; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is two hundred two 
dollars and nineteen cents ($202.19). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of November, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

THORNTON T. PERRY. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942 — 590. Thornton T. Perry, son of Roger 
Perry, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASK. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships beloi;ging to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for 
the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v . The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $51.80. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of 
the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- 
plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to 
the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the 
judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- 
cision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the 
claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 



556 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $51.80. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Jefferson, in the State of West Virginia, and is the son of Roger Perry, de- 
ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- 
ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- 
cision was $51.80; the amount suspended uuder the proviso to the act of Con- 
gress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $51.80 (fifty -one 
dollars and eighty cents.) 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

JULIA M. WOODS AND OTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-508. Julia M. Woods and Mary E. Hagan, 
daughters, Mary J. Edelen and William M. Junkin, grandchildren, of David X. Junkin, 
deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore 
pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon receiving and other ships belongings to the Navy, was trans- 
mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring 
Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, 
by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the 
defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 
under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed 
being $203.16. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the 
Treasury -for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of 
like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- 
ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date 
of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was 
rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the 
accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of 
the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on 
which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in 
the Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 557 

The accounting officers also found that the difference iu pay between that re- 
ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have 
been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress 
not prohibited the payment of the same was $203.16. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- 
uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- 
lowing 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of 
Berkeley, in the State of West Virginia, and the children and grandchildren of 
David X. Junkin, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was 
adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for 
as alleged in the petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under sanl decision 
was $203.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress 
approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $203.16 (two 
hundred and three dollars and sixteen cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed April 16, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 20th day of April, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claim*. 

WISCONSIN. 

CHARLES C. GRAFTON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 524. Charles C. Grafton, brother of 
Edward C. Grafton, deceased, v. The United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of 
the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was 
transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, 
referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions 
of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 
1906. 

Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, 
appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : 

This claim was previously presented to thejproper accounting officers of the 
Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- 
cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus 
allowed being $S90.S4. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 
of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and 
others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: 

" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- 
cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 
date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- 
ment- was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been 
adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 

Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said 
claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said 
decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion 
which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 



558 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the 
Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then 
paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $170.45, being the amount 
which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not 
relate. 

The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that 
received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would 
have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- 
gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $720.39. 

Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso and the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- 
ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still 
unpaid. 

The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and 
after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the 
following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county 
of Fond du Lac, in the State of Wisconsin, and is a brother of Edward C. Graf- 
ton, deceased, whose claim under. the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the 
accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the 
petition. 

The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision 
was $890.84; the amount paid claimant was $170.45; the amount suspended 
under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and 
which still remains unpaid is $720.39 (seven hundred and twenty dollars and 
thirty -nine cents). 

By the Court. 

Filed October 22, 1906. 

A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. 

Test this 31st day of October, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



Miscellaneous. 

HENRY L. JOHNSON. 

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12338. Henry L. Johnson, claimant, v. The 

United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for the difference between sea pay and 
shore pay while the claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the 
United States upon a receiving ship belonging to said Navy, was transmitted 
to this court by Senate resolution No. 251, on June 4, 1902, referring Senate 
bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of 
March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. 

The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 
1906, Mr. Lorenzo A. Bailey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney- 
General, by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant, and under his direction, 
appearing for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 

The claimant in his petition alleges that during the years 1874 and 1875 he 
was a lieutenant-commander in the United States Navy; that his claim was 
allowed by the Auditor for the Navy Department, but payment of the same was 
prevented by the act of Congress of September 30, 1890 ; that the sum so allowed 
was $142.47. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments of counsel 
upon each side, makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant, Henry L. Johnson, is a citizen of the United States and was 
an officer in the Navy thereof, and is the identical person whose claim was 
adjusted by the proper accounting officers in the sum of $142.47, but for the 
payment of which no appropriation has been made, the act of September 30, 
1890, containing the proviso that no part of any of these claims should be 
paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition 
in the Court of Claims in the case of Strong v. United States. 

II. The amount found by the proper accounting officers to be due to the 
claimant under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
case of Strong v. The United States was $142.47 (one hundred and forty-two 
dollars and forty-seven cents), which still remains unpaid. 

BY the Court. 
Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

559 



French Spoliation Claims. 

SHIP CERES. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Ship 

Ceres, Roswell Roath, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

281. Charles Francis Adams, jr.. administrator, etc., of Peter Chardon Brooks, 

v. The United States. 
3479. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, etc., r. The United 

States. 
4359. Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Daniel Dnnham, v. The United 

States. 
4359. Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Alphens Dunham, v. The United 

States. 
2218. Edmund D. Roath, administrator of Roswell Roath, v. The United States. 
4567. Asahel Willet, administrator of Jedediah Willett, v. The United States. 
3925. New York Insurance Company v. The United States. 
4120. Daniel Jackson, administrator of Daniel Dunham, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of April, 
1902. 

The claimants were represented by Curtis & Pickett, J. W. Butterfield, 
Lawrence Lewis, jr., and John C. Clark, esqs., and the United States, defend- 
ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistants in the Department of 
Justice, Charles W. Russell, and John W. Trainer, esqs., with whom was Assist- 
ant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Ceres, Roswell Roath, master, sailed from New London, Conn., 
June 11, 1797, on a commercial voyage bound for the port of Liverpool, 
England. 

While peacefully pursuing said voyage on the high seas the Ceres was 
captured July 1, 1797, off Cape Clear, in latitude 49' north, longitude 18° west, 
by the French privateer U Hydra of Nantes, France, taken to the port of La 
Rochelle, France, and there both vessel and cargo condemned and ordered to 
be sold by the tribunal of commerce at that place whereby the same became a 
total loss to the owners. 

The ground of condemnation was that the r61e d'equipage was not in form as 
required by the regulations of 1704, 1744, and 1778. 

II. The Ceres was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 126 f* 
tons burthen, built at Norwich, Conn., in the year 1796, and owned by Daniel 
Dunham, Roswell Roath, and Jedediah Willett, citizens of the United States 
and residing at said Norwich. 

III. The cargo of the Ceres at the time of capture consisted of potash, pearl 
ash, coffee, sugar, rice, staves, etc., and was owned by Daniel Dunham and 
Alpheus Dunham, his son. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 36 561 



562 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

IV. Tbe loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Ceres and 
cargo was as follows : 

The value of the vessel $5,054.30 

The value of the cargo i_ 12,007.69 

Freight earnings 2, 066. 66 

Premiums of insurance paid 436. 00 

. Amounting in all to 19,564.65 

Case 4359. — Daniel Dunham owned one-third of the vessel and one-half of the 
cargo. His losses were as follows : 

One-third of the value of the vessel " $1,684.77 

One-half of the value of the cargo 6, 003. 84 

One-third of the value of the freight 688.88 

One-third of the premium of insurance on the vessel 145. 33 

Amounting in all to__: 8,522.82 

Less insurance received 1 1,000.00 

Net loss of Daniel Dunham 7, 522. 82 

Case 2218. — Rosewell Roath owned one-third of the vessel and freight. His 
losses were as follows 1 : 

One-third of the value of the vessel $1, 684. 77 

One-third of the value of the freight __ 688. 88 

Premium of insurance, one-third on the vessel 145.33 

Amounting in all to 2,518.98 

Less insurance received 1,000.00 

Net loss to Roswell Roath 1, 51S. 98 

Case 4567. — Jedediah Willet owned one-third of the vessel and freight. His 
losses were as follows : 

One-third of the value of the vessel $1, 684. 77 

One-third of the value of the freight 688. 88 

One-third of the premium of insurance on the vessel l 145. 33 

Amounting in all to 2, 51S. 98 

Less insurance received 1,000.00 

Net loss of Jedediah Willet 1,518.98 

Case 4359. — Alpheus Dunham owned one-half of the cargo. His loss was as 
follows: $6,003.84. 

SPECIAL FINDINGS. 

Case 281. — September 4, 1797, said Daniel Dunham, Jedediah Willet, and 
Roswell Roath effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on the said 
vessel in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent, by a 
policy underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each 
in the sum set opposite his name, viz : 

Nathaniel Fellowes $800 

William Smith 700 

July 27, 1802, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$1,274 in cash and returned the note given by the assured for the premium, 
which, together with the commissions due said Brooks, amounted to the sum of 
$1,500, the face of said policy, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any lia- 
bilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said 
Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all 
insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. 

Case 3479. — September 4, 1797, said Daniel Dunham, Jedediah Willet, and 
Roswell Roath effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor on the said 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 563 

vessel in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent, by a 
policy underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each 
in the sum set opposite his name, viz : 

Thomas Perkins $500 

Thomas Dickason 1, 000 

Thereafter the said Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the full 
amount of said policy, as autl for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration on the estates of 
the persons for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that the persons whom they represent are the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Ceres. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were 
not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims 
which have never been assigned, except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Daniel Dunham $7, 522. 82 

Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Alpheus Dunham 6,003. 84 

Edmund D. Roath, administrator of Rosewell Roath 1, 518. 9S 

Asahel Willet, administrator of Jedediah Willet___l 1, 518. 98 

Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks 700. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes S00. 00 

H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Dickason 1, 000. 00 

William P. Perkins, executor, etc., of Thomas Perkins 500. 00 



Amounting in all to 19,564.62 

The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 
Filed May 16, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP ABIGAIL. 

ICourt of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Ves- 
sel, sloop Abigail; master, Silas Jones.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

196. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The 
United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 8th day of February, 
1906. The claimants were represented by William TT S. Curtis and Theodore J. 



564 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was 
Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as fol- 
lows: 

I. The sloop Abigail, Silas Jones, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or 
about December 4, 1799, from Boston bound to Barbados. While peacefully pur- 
suing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 24th day of 
said month by the French privateer Rieney, Oapt. Francois Triol, and carried 
to Point Petre, where the said Silas Jones was ordered ashore and not permitted 
to return to his vessel. 

January 5, 1800, said vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize by the 
tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows : 

First. Alleged defects in the vessel's sea letter. 

Second. Want of a role d'equipage. 

II. The Abigail was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 65 tons 
burthen ; was built in Massachusetts in the year 1794, and was owned by Daniel 
Scudder, a citizen of the United States residing at Boston. 

III. The cargo of the Abigail consisted of beef, pork, fish, candles, soap, onions, 
lumber, etc., none of which was contraband, and was owned by said Daniel 
Scudder, the owner of the vessel. 

IV. The value of said vessel and cargo exceeded the amount for which it was 
insured. 

V. December 5, 1799, said Daniel Scudder effected insurance in the office of 
Peter C. Brooks on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a 
premiums of 18 per cent by a policy undrewritten as here shown, to wit : 

Nathaniel Fellowes $800 

Stephen Gorham 700 

Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,500 
as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

Peter C. Brooks, Nathaniel Fellowes, and Stephen Gorham were citizens of the 
United States. 

November 24, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65, to him paid by Peter 
C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and dis- 
advantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, the said 
Stephen Gorham assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in 
and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said 
Brooks. 

VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure 
and condemnation of the Abigail, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803 ; were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 
22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 
1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Septem- 
ber, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 565 

the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of 
certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- 
ants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, seven hundred dol- 
lars $700. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, eight hun- 
dred dollars 800. 00 

Amounting in all to one thousand five hundred dollars 1,500. 00 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SLOOP TWO FRIENDS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. 

Sloop Two Friends, Peter Pond, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2338. George G. Sill, administrator of William Leavenworth, v. The United 

States. 
2861. George G. Sill, administrator of William Coggeshall, v. The United 

States. 
4564. George G. Sill, administrator of Peter Pond, v. The United States. 
781. Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United 

States. 
2063. Seth P. Snow, administrator of Cromwell Hatch, v. The United States. 
2904. The New Haven Insurance Company v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 4th day of April, 
1892. 

The claimants were represented by George G. Sill, A. H. Cragin, William E. 
Earle, Shellabarger & Wilson, and George S. Boutwell, esqs., and the United 
States, defendants, by ,the Attorney-General through his assistant in the De- 
partment of Justice, Benjamin Wilson, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General John B. Cotton. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the argument and considering 
the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the fates to be as 
follows : 

I. The sloop Two Friends, Peter Pond, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on or about the 1st day of May, 1798, from New Haven, Conn., bound for the 
island of Martinique. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized 
on the high seas on the 24th day of said month by the French privateer Sans 
Pareil and conducted to St. Martin. Subsequently, on the 25th day of June, 
1798, said vessel with her cargo were condemned as good prize by the French 
prize court sitting at Basse Terre, Guadeloupe, whereby both vessel and cargo 
became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows : 

First. That the vessel sailed for Martinique, a conquered country, in rebellion. 

Second. That the role d'equipage did not conform to the formalities pre- 
scribed by law. 

Third. That the signature of David Austin, collector, was entirely different 
from that appended to the sea letter. 

II. The Two Friends was a duly' registered vessel of the United States of 
85|f tons burthen, built at Milford, Conn., in the year 1793, and was owned 
in the proportions as here stated by the following persons, all of whom were 
citizens of the United States : William Leavenworth, one-fourth ; William Cogge- 
shall, one fourth, and Peter Pond, one-half. 



566 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



It appears that at the sale of the vessel under the decree of the French court 
the vessel was bought in by the master for the benefit of the owners for the 
sum of $372. 

III. The cargo of the Tivo Friends at the time of capture consisted of oxen, 
staves, hoops, cheese, Indian corn, butter, lard, beef, fish, pork, potatoes, and 
similar articles, and was owned in the same proportions and by the same per- 
sons as the vessel. In addition to said cargo, the said Peter Pond, master of 
the vessel, has an adventure on board, consisting of candles, tallow, sole leather, 
corn, ham, lard, etc. 

IV. The losses by reason of the condemnation of the Tivo Friends and her 
cargo were as follows : 

Cost of vessel at sale $372.00 

Value of cargo 3,000.00 

Freight earnings , 1, 425. 00 

Adventure of Peter Pond 486.75 

Premium of insurance paid by Peter Pond 840. 00 

Premium of insurance paid by William Coggeshall 720. 00 



Amounting in all to 6,843.75 

V. May 21, 1798, William Coggeshall and Peter Pond effected insurance on 
said vessel, cargo, and deck load in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of 
$5,600, of which $1,500 was on the vessel, $2,600 on cargo, and $1,500 on the 
deck load, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were 
citizens of the United States, in the sums set opposite their names : 

Crowell Hatch $1,000 Nathaniel Fellowes $1,000 

Benjamin Bussey 1, 000 Samuel W. Pomeroy 600 

David Greene 1,000 William Smith 1,000 

January 23, 1799, said Peter C. Brooks duly paid to the said Peter Pond the 
sum of $2,S00, as and for a total loss on said policy, the same being payment 
in full to the said Pond of his interest in the same. 

The said William Coggeshall had previously insured his interest in said 
vessel, cargo, and deck load with the New Haven Insurance Company. 

One of the conditions of the policy effected in the office of said Brooks was as 
follows, viz : 

" And it is the express condition of this policy that the subscribers hereto 
shall be discharged from every risk, in case the same property should be wholly 
assured, by any policy or policies actually prior to this ; but should any part of 
the same property remain unassured, by such prior policy or policies, or if 
the sum assured by this policy should exceed the true value of the property at 
risk, then the first subscriber hereto, and those next in succession shall be held 
to take and bear the risk of the sum written by each respectively, until the real 
amount of the property at risk shall be fully assured and the subsequent sub- 
scriber to this, and policies of a later date, shall be discharged from every 
risk." 

Under the above clause in said policy no payment was made to the said 
Coggeshall and the premium paid by him was returned, as further provided in 
said policy. 

The loss on said policy paid said Peter Pond was borne by the following 
underwriters as here stated, viz : 

Crowell Hatch $1, 000 

Benjamin Bussey 1, 000 

David Greene 800 

VI. May 9, 1798, said William Coggeshall effected insurance with the New 
Haven Insurance Company by three separate policies, to wit : one in the sum of 
$1,000 on the vessel at a premium of 30 per cent; one in the sum of $1,500 on 
oxen on the deck of said vessel at a premium of 25 per cent; and one on the 
cargo in the sum of $1,000 at a premium of 30 per cent. 

His total insurance was $3,500, for which he paid a premium of $975. 

It appearing that the said Coggeshall was overinsured the company finally 
paid him the sum of $2,336.29 and returned him all of the premium paid by him, 
except the sum of $720, but as the loss of said Coggeshall growing out of said 
seizure was only $1,919.25, as hereinafter set forth, he was overinsured the sum 
of $417.04. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 567 

VII. After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration 
of $10,000 and the assumption of all the responsibility of Benjamin Bussey as an 
insurer in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks 
all of his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, on December 23, 1801, for and in consideration of 
$6,000 and the assumption of all responsibility of David Greene as insurer in. 
the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Greene assigned to said Brooks all of his in- 
terest in said business. 

VIII. Peter Pond was the owner of one-half of said vessel, cargo, and deck 
load, and sole owner of an adventure on board. 

His losses were as follows : 

Loss on vessel ,. $186.00 

One-half of value of cargo and deck load 1, 500.00 

One-half of freight earnings 712.50 

Value of adventure 486.75 

Premium of insurance paid 840.00 

Total 3, 725. 25 

Deduct insurance received 2,800.00 

Balance 925.25 

IX. The loss to said William Coggeshall was as follows : 

One-fourth paid for vessel $93.00 

One-fourth value of cargo 750.00 

One-fourth freight earnings 356.25 

Premium of insurance paid , 720.00 

Total 1, 919. 25 

But as hereinbefore set forth, said Coggeshall was paid the sum of $2,336.29 
by the New Haven Insurance Company. His losses were fully covered, being 
overinsured the sum of $417.04. 

The loss to said William Leavenworth was asofollows : 

One-fourth paid for vessel at sale $93.00 

One-fourth value of cargo 750.00 

One-fourth freight earnings 356.25 

Amounting in all to 1,199.25 

XI. The New Haven Insurance Company is a corporation d^uly incorporated 
under the laws of Connecticut, was existing in the year 1798, and is still 
existing. 

XII. The other claimants herein bave produced letters of administration on 
the various estates and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons whom they represent are the same persons wbo suffered loss by 
reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Two Friends. 

XIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on tbe 30tb day of April, 1803; 
they were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1S19, and were not allowed in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between tbe United States 
and France on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are tbe owners of said claims 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of tbe United States by said treaty in part consideration of tbe relinquishment 



568 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

George G. Sill, administrator of Peter Pond '_ $925. 25 

Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks 1, 800. 00 

Seth P. Snow, administrator of Crowell Hatch 1, 000. 00 

The New Haven Insurance Company 1, 919. 25 

George G. Sill, administrator of William Leavenworth 1, 199. 25 

By the Court. 
Filed April 4, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December. 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SHrP SALLY BUTLER. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., p. 283. 

Ship Sally Butler, Alexander Chisolm, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

3361. Archibald Smith, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James 

Seagrove, deceased, /-. The United States. 
3136. James H. Johnston, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James 

Johnston, surviving partner of Johnston, Robertson & Co., v. The 

United States. 
4527. W. H. Elliott, administrator de bonis non of William Meins, deceased, 

surviving partner of Meins & Mackey, v. The United States. ' 

3134. W. H. Elliott, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Robert Mackay, 

of the firm of Mains & Mackay, v. The United States'. 

3135. Jordan F. Brooks, administrator ad colligendum of the estate of Thomas 

Young, deceased, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of Novem- 
ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by James Lowndes, esq., and the 
United States, defendants, by the Attoruey-General, through his asisstant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The ship Sally Butler, Alexander Chisolm. master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage on or about March 23, 1798, from Savannah, Ga., bound for London. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high seas on or 
about May 3, 1798, by the French privateer, La Tartare, Captain Leconte, and 
taken into the port of Bordeaux, where, on the 26th day of June, 1798, said 
vessel and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 
First. That the crew list was not in form. 

Second. That certain papers on board the vessel were found concealed at the 
time of capture. 

Third. That there were duplicate bills of lading. 

II. The Sally Butler was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 
140ff tons burden ; was built at St. Simon, in the State of Georgia, in the year 
1797, and was owned by James Seagrove, a citizen of the United States and a 
resident of St. Mary, Ga. 

III. The cargo of the Sally Butler at the time of capture consisted of 
cotton shipped by sundry persons at Savannah, Ga., but whether they were the 
owners of same does not appear ; neither does it appear that the neutrality of 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 569 

said cargo was established before the French prize tribunal at the time of the 
condemnation proceedings. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Sally Butler, 
so far as is shown by the evidence, were as follows : 

The value of the vessel $6,311.41 

V. The loss to said James Seagrove by reason of said capture and condemna- 
tion was as follows : 

The value of the vessel $6,311.41 

VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose esates they have filed 
claims are the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation 
of the Sally Butler as set forth in the preceding findings. 

VII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, 
and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and Spain concluded on the 22d of January, 1819, and were not allowed in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid ; nor does it appear that 
said claims are owned by an insurance company. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of 
the vessel was illegal, and that the owner had a valid claim of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention 
between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th 
day of September, 1800: that said claims were relinquished to France by the 
Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the 
relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, 
and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

Archibald Smith, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James 
Seagrove, deceased, six thousand three hundred and eleven dollars 
and forty-one cents $6,311.41 

None of the other claimants herein have proved valid claims. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December. 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG NEPTUNE. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Brig Neptune, Hezekiah Flint, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

3303. David Pingree, administrator of Thomas Perkins, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
2666. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
4182. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
35S4. Charles T. Loveriug, administrator of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
3584. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
3584. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
3584. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, deceased, v. The 

United States. — - 



570 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 2d dav of March, 
1902. 

The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. Clagett, 
Theodore J. Pickett, and William T. S. Curtis, esqs., and the United States, de- 
fendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistant in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General 
Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after considering the same with the briefs 
and arguments of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : 

I. The brig Neptune, Hezekiah Flint, master, sailed on tbe 13th day of De- 
cember, 1799, from Surinam. South America, on a commercial voyage bound 
for Salem. Mass. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on 
the high seas on the 17th day of December, 1799. by the French privateer 
Jason, commanded by Captain Gayetan. On the 27th day of December, 1799, 
she was condemned by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basse 
Terre. Guadaloupe, on the following grounds : 

" First. The captain was the bearer of a commission authorizing him to cap- 
ture French cruisers and carry them into the ports of the United States. 

" Second. That the captain had neither invoice nor bill of lading for the 
commodities which he had on board. 

" Third. That the cargo of sirups put on board at Surinam, an English 
country, was destined for Salem, as the captain has declared." 

It appears, however, that at the time of the seizure and condemnation there 
were on board the vessel a manifest and invoice showing that the cargo was 
owned by Peabody & Perkins, of Salem, Mass. 

II. The Neptune was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 160ff 
tons burden ; was built at Salem, Mass.. in the year 179S, and was owned by 
Joseph Peabody and Thomas Perkins in the following proportions : Joseph 
Peabody, two-thirds, and Thomas Perkins, one-third. 

III. The cargo of the Neptune consisted of sirups, and was owned by the 
owners of the vessel. 

IV. The losses sustained by reason of the capture and condemnation of the 
Neptune up to the time of said condemnation were as follows: 

Value of the vessel $7,215.00 

Value of the cargo 8,741.04 

Freight earnings for the voyage 2, 672.28 

Premium of insurance paid on cargo 1,800.07 

Amounting in all to 20,428.39 

Thomas Perkins was the owner of one-third of the value of vessel, freight, 
and cargo. His losses up to the time of said condemnation were as follows: 

One-third the value of the vessel $2, 405. 00 

One-third the value of the cargo 2, 913. 68 

One-third the value of the freight earnings 890. 76 

One-third premium paid on cargo 600.02 

Amounting in all to 6,809.46 

Less insurance received 6,400.12 

Net loss 409.34 

Case No. 3585. — On February 15, 1800, said Peabody & Perkins effected insur- 
ance on said vessel in the office of Joseph Taylor, in Boston, in the sum of 
$2,500, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent, by a policy underwritten by 
the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in 
the sum set opposite his name, viz : 

Benjamin Homer $1, 000 

John McLean 500 

John C. Jones 1,000 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 571 

On the 21st clay of March, 1800, said Taylor, as agent for the underwriters, 
duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,500 as and for a total loss by reason of 
the premises, the same being a loss to each of the said underwriters of the sum 
underwritten by him. 

Case No. 2666. — In the year 1800 said Peabody & Perkins effected insurance 
on said vessel in the office of James King, of Salem, Mass., in the sum of $6,700, 
at a premium of 6 per cent. 

On the 20th of May, 1800, said James King, as agent for the underwriters, 
paid the said assured the sum of $6,700 as and for a total loss. Said Peabody 
& Perkins also insured the cargo in the office of said James King in the sum of 
$10,000.40, at a premium of IS per cent. 

On the 20th day of May, 1800, the said James King, as agent for the under- 
writers, paid the assured the said sum of $10,000.40 as and for a total loss. 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration on the estates of 
the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in 
fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation of the 
Neptune, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims Were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were 
not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of 
the 4th of July. 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid, nor does it appear that any 
of said claims are owned by an insurance company. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention 
between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day 
of September, 1S00 : and said claims were relinquished to France by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relin- 
quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States: and 
that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

3303. David Pingree, administrator of Thomas Perkins, deceased, 

four hundred and nine dollars and thirty-four cents $409. 34 

4182. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, de- 
ceased, fire hundred dollars 500.00 

3584. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, deceased, 

one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

3584. Thomas N.Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, deceased, 

one thousand dollars 1. 000. 00 

2666. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, deceased- Not proven. 

No allowance is made for the premiums paid for insurance on said vessel, said 
insurance having been effected subsequent to the date of the condemnation of 
the vessel, but the insurers having paid the claimants' losses as set forth in the 
findings are entitled to be subrogated to the claimants' rights to the extent of 
the loss so paid. (Schr. John Eason, 37 C. Cls. P., 443.) 

The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 12, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



572 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VESSEL KETCH JOHN. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., p. 283. 
Ketch John, Henry Tibbetts, master. No. 1068. Hasket Derby, administrator de 
bonis non of Elias Hasket Derby, v. The United States.] 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 29th day of Novem- 
ber, 1904. i 

The claimant was represented by Edward Lander, esq., Frank W. Hackett, 
esq., and Charles W. Clagett, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the 
Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court upon the evidence and after considering the same with briefs of 
counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The ketch John, Henry Tibbetts, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on or about the 18th day of September, 1796, from Salem, Mass., bound for 
Bordeaux, France, and from thence back to Salem. On or about the 5th day 
of June, 1797, the John sailed from the Isle of France homeward bound for 
Salem, and while peacefully pursuing said homeward voyage she was captured 
on the high seas, on the 30th of August, 1797, by the French sloop of war Jean 
Barb, Captain Lafitte, who put a prize crew on board and ordered her to Guada- 
loupe. The John proceeded southward until the 15th day of September, 1797, 
when she was recaptured by the British frigate L 'Amiable, commanded by 
Capt. Granville Lobb, and carried into Tortola, where, on the 25th October, 
1797, she was condemned by the British vice-admiralty court to pay one-eighth 
part of the gross value of the said vessel and cargo as salvage. 

II. The John was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 258 tons 
burthen ; was built at Salem, Mass., in the year 1795, and was owned by Elias 
Hasket Derby, a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the John at the time of capture consisted of indigo, cotton, 
and sugar, and was owned by said Elias Hasket Derby,' the owner of the 
vessel. 

IV. The loss by reason of the capture of the John was as follows : 

Salvage paid by the vessel and cargo owned bv said Elias Hasket 
Derby $12, 962. 92 

V. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the 
estate of the party for whom he appears and has otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the person for whose estate he has filed a claim 
is the same person who suffered loss by the seizure of the John, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

VI. The said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, 
and was not a claim growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, 
which has never been assigned except as aforesaid, nor does it appear that any 
of said claim is owned by an insurance company. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as a conclusion of law that said seizure by the French was 
illegal and that the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. . 573 

certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

Hasket Derby, administrator of Elias Hasket Derby, twelve thou- 
sand nine hundred and sixty-two dollars and ninety-two cents $12,962.92 

By the Court. 
Filed December 5, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claim*. 

♦ BRIGANTINE ELIZA. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. 

Brigantine Eliza, Thomas Woodbury, master.] 
No. of 
claim. Claimant. 

2309. Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of William Orne, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
1114. Joseph . Ogden, executor of Jane Ann Ferrers, claimant, v. The United 

States. 
1114. Bayard Tuckerman, administrator of Walter Channing, deceased, sur- 
viving partner of Gibbs & Channing, v. The United States. 
1114. Thomas W. Ludlow, administrator of Thomas Ludlow, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
1114. Walter S. Church and Walter S. Church, administrators of John Barker 

Church, claimant, v. The United States. 
1114. Leopold Mark, administrator of Louis Mark, deceased, surviving partner 

of Jacob and Louis Mark, late doing business as Jacob Mark & Co., 

claimant, v. The United States. 
159. Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix of Richard S. Hallett, claimant, 

v. The United States. 
2013. Robert B. Lawrence, administrator of John B. Bowne, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
2013. Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, claimant, v. The United 

States. 
3497. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
3497. Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of James Dunlap, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
3497. William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
617. Harriet E. Sebor, administratrix of Jacob Sebor, claimant, v. The United 

States. 
3743. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, claimant, v. The 

United States. 
4602. Sarah L. Farnum, administratrix of the estate of Leffert Lefferts, 

claimant, v. The United States. 
970. John C. Ropes, administrator of Thomas Amory, claimant, v. The United 

States. 
1114. Francis R. Shaw, administrator of J. C. Shaw, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of Novem- 
ber, 1904. 

The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, William T. S. Curtis, 
Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Clagett, and the United States, defendant, 
by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, 
John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. 
Pradt. 

I. The brig Eliza, Thomas Woodbury, jr., master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage from Salem, Mass., on the 5th day of December, 179S, bound for Bilboa, 
Spain. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the 20th 



574 t ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

day of January, 1799, on the high seas, by the French privateer Les Deux Amis, 
of Bayonne, France, and carried into Bayonne. 

The Eliza and cargo were libelled before the tribunal of commerce at Bayonne 
and, on the 13th day of March, 1799, were released by the decree of that court. 
The captors appealed from the decree rendered by the tribunal of commerce at 
Bayonne to the court of appeals at Pau. On the 6th day of April, 1799, the court 
of appeals at Pau condemned the vessel and cargo upon the following grounds : 

That part of the cargo of the Eliza consisted of sugar, and that under the 
law of the tenth Brummaire, year five, refined sugar, whether in loaf or in 
powder, must be considered to proceed from English manufactures, whatever 
may be their origin ; that the law of the twenty-ninth Nivose, year six, discloses 
that the condition of vessels, so far as their neutrality or enmity is concerned, 
shall be determined by their cargoes, and, therefore, every vessel found upon 
the sea laden in whole or in part with merchandise reputed to be the product 
of England or her possessions shall be declared good prize, whoever may be the 
owner of the commodities or merchandise. 

From this decree the owner of the vessel and cargo took an appeal to the 
court of cessation at Paris, which court, on the 1st day of September, 1799, 
rejected the appeal and finally condemned the vessel and cargo. 

While the case was pending before the tribunal of commerce at Bayonne, 
that court ordered the sale of the vessel and cargo to abide the final decree. 
Under this sale the vessel and cargo realized the sum of 260,464 livres 76 sous, 
or $48,186. 

II. The Eliza was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 152 tons 
burden ; was built at Amesbury, Mass., in 1790, and was owned solely by 
William Orne, a citizen of the United States, residing in Salem. 

III. The cargo of the Eliza consisted of sugar, cocoa, salt fish, and one barrel 
of oil, and was owned, with the exception of the adventures of the crew, by 
William Orne, a citizen of the United States. 

IV. The .losses sustained by reason of the capture and condemnation of the 
Eliza and cargo were as follows : 

The amount the vessel and cargo sold for in France, 260,464 livres 

76 sous, or $48,186 

Premiums on insurance paid on vessel and cargo 3, 050 

. Amounting in all to 51, 236 

V. William Orne, the owner of the Eliza, insured the same on the 23d day of 
March, 1799, in the office of Joseph Taylor, an insurance broker of Boston, in the 
sum of $2,000, at a premium of 25 per cent, said policy being subscribed or 
underwritten by the following persons for the amounts set opposite their names, 
all of whom were citizens of the United States : 

James Dunlap $500 

Thomas Amory — : 1, 000 

Francis Green 500 

Amounting in all to 2, 000 

Thereafter; on September 21, 1799, by reason of the aforesaid loss, the said 
underwriters paid the insured the several amounts by them subscribed. 

That on or about February 15, 1799, the aforesaid owner of the cargo of the 
said brig Eliza, William Orne, insured his interest therein in the office of John 
Ferrers, an insurance broker in the city of New York, in the sum of $19,000, at 
a premium cost of 10 per cent. The said policy was underwritten by various 
parties, among the number being citizens of the United States who underwrote 
for the amount set opposite their names : 

Jacob Sebor $250 

Gibbs & Channing 750 

Leffert Lefferts 500 

Thomas Ludlow 500 

Hallett, Bowne & Co 1, 000 

Bowne & Embree :- 500 

John B. Church 2,000 

J. C. Shaw 250 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 575 

The underwriters above named are in court, and the amounts by them sub- 
scribed were paid to the insured as and for a total loss. 

The other underwriters mentioned in said policy have not presented any 
claim, except the firm of Jacob Mark & Co., which underwrote for $500, but it 
appears that said firm did not pay its subscription upon said policy. 

It likewise appears from the record that certain additional underwriters on 
said policy did not pay to the insured, William Orne, the sum of $3,500. 

After deducting the above sum of $3,500 from the policy of $19,000, the actual 
sum received by the insured from the underwriters on said policy was $15,500. 

In addition to the above-mentioned insurance the said William Orne, on March 
22, 1799, caused further insurance to be effected for his account upon said cargo 
in the sum of $2,600 in the office of John King, an insurance broker in Salem, 
Mass., at a premium cost of 25 per cent, said policy being underwritten by 
sundry persons, none of whom have appeared in this case. 

On September 24, 1799, said underwriters by reason of said loss paid the 
insured, William Orne, the sum of $2,600 as and for a total loss by reason of 
the premises. 

VI. The firm of Hallett, Bowne & Co. was composed of Richard Hallett and 
Walter Bowne. 

The firm of Bowne & Embree was composed of John R. Bowne, Samuel 
Embree, Walter Bowne, and Richard S. Hallett. 

The firm of Gibbs & Chauning was composed of George Gibbs and Walter 
Channing, of whom Walter C. Channing was the surviving partner. 

VII. The losses of the respective claimants, by reason of the capture and 
condemnation of the Eliza, were as follows : 

William Orne : 

Amount the vessel and cargo sold for in France, 260,461 livres 

76 sous, or $4S, 186. 00 

Premiums of insurance paid 3,050.00 

Amounting in all to 51, 236. 00 

From which deduct — 

The adventures of tbe captain and crew $1, 343. 54 

Insurance received from Taylor's office 2, 000. 00 

Insurance received from King's office 2, 600. 00 

Insurance received from Ferrer's office 15, 500. 00 

— 21, 443. 54 

Total loss 29, 792. 46 

VIII. The losses of the various underwriters, by reason of the capture and 
condemnation of the Eliza, were as follows : 

Jacob Sebor $250. 00 

Gibbs & Channing 750.00 

Leffert Lefferts 500. 00 

Thomas Ludlow 500. 00 

Hallett, Bowne & Co 1,000.00 

Bowne & Embree 500.00 

John B. Church 2,000.00 

James Dunlap 1 500. 00 

Thomas Ambry 1, 000. 00 

Francis Green 500.00 

IX. The claimants have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
represented by them and have proven to the satisfaction of the court that the 
persons for whose estates they appear are the same persons who suffered loss 
through the capture and condemnation of the brig Eliza, as set forth in the 
preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
Spain, concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed and 
paid, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United 
States and France of the 4th day of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned. 



576 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of William Orne, twenty-nine 

thousand seven hundred and ninety-two dollars and forty-six 

cents $29, 792.46 

Bayard Tuckerman, administrator of Walter Channing, surviving 

partner of Gibbs & Channing, seven hundred and fifty dollars 750.00 

Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of James Dunlap, five hundred 

dollars 500. 00 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, one thou- 
sand dollars 1, 000.00 

Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, five hundred 

dollars 500. 00 

Harriet E. Sebor, administratrix of Jacob Sebor, two hundred and 

fifty dollars 250. 00 

Sarah L. Farnum, administratrix of Left'ert Lefferts, five hundred 

dollars 500. 00 

Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix* of Richard S. Hallett, six 

hundred and twenty-five dollars 625. 00 

Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, six hundred and 

twenty-five dollars 625. 00 

Robert B. Lawrence, administrator of John B. Bowne, one hundred 

and twenty-five dollars ±. 125.00 

Walter S. Church and Walter S. Church, administrators of John 

Barker Church, two thousand dollars ' 2, 000. 00 

Thomas W. Ludlow, administrator of Thomas Ludlow, five hundred 

dollars 500. 00 

Francis R. Shaw, administrator of J. C. Shaw, two hundred and 

fifty dollars •_ 250. 00 

The firm of Jacob Mark & Co. have proved no valid claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 12, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this twentieth day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG GENERAL WARREN. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. 
(Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471.) Vessel brig General Warren; master, 
Issachar Stowell.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

47. Edmund D. Codman, administrator, etc., of William Gray, v. The United 
States. 
1037. Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks v. The United 
States. 

2246. George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch r. The United 

States. 

2247. George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch r. The United 

States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of De- 
cember, 1904. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, 
and" Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendant, by the Attor- 
ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General Louis A. Pradt. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 577 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows: 

I. The brig General Warren, Issachar Stowell, master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage on or about the 17th day of January, 1797, from Boston, bound either 
to Surinam, South America, or to one or more points in the West Indies. 

While peacefully pursuing said voyage in latitude 13° 10' north, longitude 
55° west, the General Warren was seized on the high seas on the 12th day of 
February, 1797, by the French privateer Tintamarre, Captain Moquet, and car- 
ried into St. Bustatius, and afterwards, on the 12th day of March, 1797, both 
vessel and cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce, sitting at Basse 
Terre, Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree was " that the General 
Warren was bound for the West Indies." 

The circumstances as to the seizure is set forth in the protest of Captain 
Stowell as follows : 

[Extract from the registers of the register office of the municipality of Bassterre, 

Guadeloupe.] 

This eleventh day of Ventose, fifth year of the Republic, at the municipal 
court of Bassterre, Guadaloupe, composed of citizens Patriat, mayor, Negr§, 
national agent, John Baptist Seignoret, municipal officer, assisted by the dark 
of the court, has made his appearance Mr. Isecar Stowell, captain of the Ameri- 
can brig General Warren, of the port of Boston ; owners, Messrs. Gridley & 
Nolen, merch'ts, of that place. 

The said captain, assisted by an interpreter of the English language, and, 
after having taken the usual oath to speak nothing but the truth, declares that 
he left the said port of Boston the seventeenth day of January (old style), with 
a cargo of fifty-four mules, good and merchantable, destined for Surinam ; 
that after he had been out six days he experienced such bad weather, the sea 
running very high, that it caused the vessel to leak very considerably and he 
was obliged to keep both pumps going for two hours and a half, and that it was 
with very great difficulty and fatigue that he succeeded in freeing her from the 
leak, and even afterwards was obliged to have her pumped more frequently 
than formerly ; that some days after he had very bad weather, during which he 
lost four mules of the cargo ; that the eleventh of February following, find- 
ing himself in the latitude 13 degrees 10 minutes and 55 longitude, the same 
leak appeared, and in greater abundance, so much so that he was obliged to 
keep both pumps continually going, which very much fatigued his crew, who, 
not being able to entirely free her from the leak he saw he should be exposed 
to eminent danger if he persisted in endeavoring to reach Surinam, which made 
him determine to quit that course and make sail for the island of Barbadoes, 
it being the most easy port to fetch ; that the next morning, twelvth of the same 
month, he was met nearly in the same latitude by the privateer La Tintamarre, 
Captain Moquet, who boarded him and stationed on board a prize-master and 
seven men, and made him come with three of his crew, observing that at the 
moment he was conveyed on board the privateer the brig was sinking, and the 
two pumps going without intermission ; that the said privateer set sail for 
Bassterre, and arrived there the twenty-first of February; that he thought he 
should there find his vessel, but was mistaken, and that since that period he 
has expected her arrival and has not heard any news of her. 

For which reason he requests (acts des reserves et protestation) a law term, 
which he makes as well in his own name as that of his owners : First, on 
account of the bad weather and leakage he experienced ; secondly, on account of 
the seizure of said brig, the command of which was taken from him by the said 
privateer ; thirdly, for his conduct in appearing in the court in this road ; 
fourthly and lastly, on account of the port charges, demurage, expences, and 
events, which have been and may still be occasioned by the capture, the business 
now in hand, reserving himself to make more ample declarations and. protesta- 
tions when he shall know the fate of the said brig and her cargo, in order to 
charge them to those to whom they may appertain, which has been by the 

court signed by the members, the interpreter, and the dark of the court. 
Signed on the register I. Stowell, Berniere, Patriat, mayor Negre, national agent, 
Seignoret, permanent officer, and Dechamp, dark of the court. 

Coll'd. 

Dechamps. Clark of the Court. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 37 



578 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

II. The General Warren was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 
116g| tons burthen: was built in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1791, 
and was owned by William Gridley, Charles Nolen, and Jacob Farnsworth, 
citizens of the United States, residing in Massachusetts. 

III. The cargo of the General Warren consisted of 50 mules, lumber, provi- 
sions, skins, and a small quantity of dry goods, and was owned by the firm of 
Gridley & Nolen and Freeborn Sisson, also a citizen of the United States. 

Four of said mules were lost in the course of the voyage prior to the seizure 
of the vessel by the French. 

IV. No one claiming to represent the owners of the vessel or cargo have ap- 
peared herein, but it appears from the evidence that the value of same was 
equal to at least the amount for which the same was insured. 

V. January 2, 1797, said Gridley & Nolen and Freeborn Sisson caused insur- 
ance to be effected on the cargo in the office of Peter C. Brooks, a citizen of the 
United States, in the sum of $3,500, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent. 
Said policy was underwritten as here shown by the following persons, all of 
whom were citizens of the United States: 

Crowell Hatch $500 

William Smith ^ 500 

Stephen Gorham . 500 

David Green _" 500 

Daniel Sargent ^ ,_ 300 

John Brazer 700 

Caleb Hopkins___' 500 

July 31, 1797, said Brooks paid to the said assured the sum of $3,500, as and 
for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

VI. January 1, 1797, said Gridley & Nolen and Freeborn Sisson caused insur- 
ance to be effected on 50 mules shipped on said vessel in the office of Peter O. 
Brooks, in the sum of $3,333.33, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Said 
policy was underwritten as here shown by the following persons, all of whom 
were citizens of the United States : 

Crowell Hatch : $500. 00 

David Greene 500. 00 

Daniel Sargent • 300. 00 

John Brazer 700. 00 

Tuthill Hubbart 500. 00 

Caleb Hopkins 500.00 

Clark & Nightingale 333. 33 

July 31, 1797, said Brooks duly paid to the said assured the full sum of the 
said policy, but as four of the mules were lost prior to the seizure of the said 
vessel by the French, the loss to the underwriters arising therefrom on this 
policy amounted to the sum of $3,066.66. 

■ VII. January 19, 1797, said Gridley & Nolen caused insurance to be effected 
on said vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $3,000, paying there- 
for a premium of 12 per cent. Said policy was underwritten as here shown : 

Clark & Nightingale $500 

David Wood, jr 350 

William Bordman 300 

William Gray, jr 1, 850 

July 31, 1797, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$3,000 as and for' a total Joss by reason of the premises. 

The said Clark & Nightingale, William Bordman, and William Gray, jr., were 
citizens of the United States. 

VIII. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and 
in consideration of $3,715.15, to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assump- 
tion by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his 
underwriting in the office of said Brooks, the said William Smith assigned to 
said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him 
as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in 
consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 579 

all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the 
office of the said Brooks, the said Stephen Gorham made a similar assignment 
to said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 23, 1801, for and in 
consideration of $6,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of 
all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the 
office of the said Brooks, the said David Greene made a similar assignment to 
said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, September 2, 1805, for and in 
consideration of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of 
all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the 
office of the said Brooks, the said Daniel Sargent made a similar assignment to 
said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, September 4, 1804, for and in 
consideration of $5,780.85 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of 
all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the 
office of the said Brooks, the said John Brazer made a similar assignment to 
said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 8, 1801, Isaac Rands, 
administrator, etc., of Caleb Hopkins, for and in consideration of $3,000 to him 
paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any lia- 
bilities and disadvantages arising froin the underwriting of said Hopkins in the 
office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in 
and to all insurance done by the said Hopkins in the office of said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, April 4, 1808, E. Partridge and 
W. Gooch, administrators, etc., of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of 
$60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of 
all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart 
in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and inter- 
est in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart in the office of the said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, March 21, 1804, for and in con- 
sideration of $199.04 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by 
said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from their un- 
derwriting in the office of said Brooks, the said firm of Clark & Nightingale 
made a similar assignment to said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, November 15, 1804, for and in 
consideration of $13,250 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by 
said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his under- 
writing in the office of said Brooks, the said William Bordman made a similar 
assignment to said Brooks. 

IX. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure 
and condemnation of the General Warren, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were 
not claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or In 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, -1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
was illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th of September, 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- 



580 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

tain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants 
are entitled to the following sums from the United Sates : 

Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, six thousand 
four hundred and six dollars and sixty-eight cents $6, 406. 68 

Edmond D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., one thou- 
sand eight hundred and fifty dollars 1, 850. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, nine hundred and 
sixty dollars 960. 00 

By the Coubt. 
Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] • John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SHIP CINCINNATUS. 

[Court 6f Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat L., 283. Vol. 
1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel ship Cincinnatus, William Martin, 
master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

887. Richard H. Pleasants, administrator, etc., of Aquila Brown, jr., v. The 

United States. 
1699. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of Baltimore Insurance 

Company, v. The United States. 
4083. William A. Glasgow, jr., administrator, etc., of William P. Tebbs, v. The 

United States. 

. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 27th day of April, 
1904. The claimants were represented by George A. King, William T. S. Curtis, 
and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attor- 
ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The ship Cincinnatus, whereof William Martin was master, sailed on a com- 
mercial voyage, partly in ballast, from London, England, on or about the 16th 
day of May, 1797, bound to Baltimore, Md. While peacefully pursuing said voy- 
age she was seized on the high seas, on the 31st day of the said month of May, by 
the French privateer Aigle, under the command of Captain Dartigue, and carried 
into L'Orient, and both vessel and cargo thereafter condemned as good prize by 
the tribunal of commerce of said place. From this decree appeal was taken to 
the civil tribunal of the Department of Morbihan, where the same was annulled 
for technical defects and new trial ordered. On the second trial in the tribunal 
of commerce the cargo was condemned as good prize and the vessel released. 
Appeal was again made to the civil tribunal of the Department of Morbihan, 
where, on the 30th day of October, 1797, both vessel and cargo were finally con- 
demned as good prize and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the final decree of the said civil 
tribunal were the want of a role d'equipage in due form and for the reason that 
there were three English passengers on board said vessel. 

II. The Cincinnatus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 229 f f 
tons burthen, built in Maryland in 1792, and was owned solely by Aquila Brown, 
jr., a citizen of the United States, residing in Baltimore, Md. 

III. The cargo of the Cincinnatus consisted of dry merchandise in cases and 
bales, the property of sundry citizens of the United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 581 

With one exception the value and names of the owners of said cargo do not 
appear. 

Among the owners of said cargo was William P. Tebbs, a citizen of the United 
States, whose shipment consisted of an invoice of nine trunks of books, of the 
value of £577 Is. 4d. sterling, worth in money of the United States $2,562.20. 

IV. The losses by reason of said seizure and condemnation so far as shown by 
the evidence were as follows, viz : 

Value of vessel $11, 465. 00 

Freight earnings 21. 75 

Invoice of W. P. Tebbs 2, 560. 20 

Premium of insurance paid 800. 00 

Total _-- 14, 846. 95 

V. The loss to William P. Tebbs was as follows : 

Value of invoice of books $2, 560. 20 

VI. The losses to Aquila Brown, jr., were as follows : 

Value of vessel $11,465.00 

Freight earnings 21. 75 

Premium of insurance paid 800. 00 

Total 12, 286. 75 

Less insurance received 9, 800. 00 

Net loss 2, 486. 75 

VII. October 28, 1796, said Aquila Brown, jr., effected insurance on said vessel 
with the Baltimore Insurance Company in the sum of $10,000, paying therefor a 
premium of 8 per cent for the voyage from Baltimore to London and thence back 
to Baltimore. 

March 3, 1798, the said company duly paid to the said assured the sum of 
$9,800 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the ."nee of said 
policy, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. 

The Baltimore Insurance Company was duly incorporated under the laws of 
the State of Maryland, and authorized to carry on the business of marine and 
other insurance. David Stewart and John E. Semmes have been appointed re- 
ceivers of said company by the circuit court of Baltimore, Md. 

VIII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims 
are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation 
of the Cincinnatus as set forth in the preceding findings. 

IX. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France on the 
4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention 
between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day 
of September, 1800 : that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- 
ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relin- 



582 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and 
that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

David Stewart and John R. Semmes, receivers of the Baltimore In- 
surance Company, nine thousand eight hundred dollars . $9, 800. 00 

Richard H. Pleasants, administrator of Aquila Brown, jr., two thou- 
sand four hundred and eighty-six dollars and seventy-five cents 2, 486. 75 

William A. Glasgow, jr., administrator of William P. Tebbs, two 

thousand five hundred and sixty dollars and twenty cents 2, 560. 20 

Amounting in all to 14,846.95 

By the Court. 
Filed May 2, 1904. 

A true copj r . 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG PILGRIM. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Brig 

Pilgrim, Priam Pease, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

4062. Nathaniel H. Stone, administrator of John M. Forbes, v. The United States. 
4061. Russell Bradford, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by George A. and William B. King, 
esqs., and Russell Bradford, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the 
Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The brig Pilgrim, Priam Pease, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
from Bordeaux, France, in the autumn of 1798, bound for Cayenne, French 
Guiana, South America, and arrived at her destination November 22, 1798. On 
her arrival there she was seized by order of the agent of the executive directory 
of France in that colony and brought before the tribunal of commerce of that 
colony sitting at Cayenne. This tribunal rendered a decree dated November 27, 
1798, declaring the vessel and her cargo American property, and ordering that 
decree to be certified to the agent of the executive directory, who was the chief 
executive authority of the French Government in the colony. That officer, 
December 23, 1798, ordered that in view of hostile preparations and acts on the 
part of the authorities of the United States against the French, the vessel and 
her cargo be sold at public auction and that the proceeds be placed in the 
national treasury ; that a copy of the proceedings be given to Captain Pease, 
who, in case it should become notoriously known that the conduct of the Ameri- 
cans toward the French is no longer aggressive or hostile, should be entitled to 
receive the proceeds of the same. 

An appeal was taken by Captain Pease to the court of cassation from the 
decree of the tribunal of commerce declaring the vessel and cargo to be Ameri- 
can property, but whether said appeal was ever perfected or what was the re- 
sult of the same does not appear. 

Complaint was made to the executive authorities at Paris of the conduct of 
the agent of the executive directory in ordering the sale of the vessel and cargo 
and sequestering the proceeds. It appears that the result of these steps was 
that Talleyrand, then minister of exterior relations of France, advised the min- 
ister of marine that the action taken by the agent of the directory at Cayenne 
could only be considered as an embargo and sequestration and that France and 
the United States were not at war, and that some instructions ought to be sent 
to the agent of the directory at Cayenne to elucidate his determination and 
guide his conduct in the future. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAUS" CLAIMS. 583 

It does not appear that the owners of the Pilgrim and her cargo ever received 
any part of the proceeds of said sale at Cas 7 enne. 

II. The Pilgrim was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 12-1 tons 
burden; was built in Philadelphia in the year 1786, and was owned by J. M. 
& R. B. Forbes, a partnership firm, consisting of John M. Forbes and Robert 
Bennet Forbes, citizens of the United States, of whom John M. Forbes was the 
surviving partner. 

III. The cargo of the Pilgrim at the time of capture consisted of wines and 
liquors and other articles of commercial produce and manufacture and was 
owned five-sixths by J. M. & R. B. Forbes, owners of the vessel, and one-sixth 
by Joseph Russell, also a citizen of the United States. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Pilgrim 
were as follows : 

Value of the vessel $3,720.00 

Value of cargo , 16,646.64 

Freight earnings 3, 100. 00 

Total 23, 466. 64 

V. The losses of J. M. & R. B. Forbes by reason of said capture were as 
follows : 

Value of the vessel $3,720.00 

Freight earnings I 3, 100. 00 

Five-sixths value of cargo 13,872.20 

Total 20, 692. 20 

VI. The loss of Joseph Russell by reason of said capture was as follows: 
One-sixth value of cargo $2, 774.44 

VII. The claimants have produced letters of administration on tbe estates of 
the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are 
the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and the sale of the 
Pilgrim and her cargo as set forth in the preceding findings. 

VIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between, the United 
States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
Spain, concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and France on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned, nor does it appear that any of said claims are 
owned by an insurance company. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure was illegal and the 
owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Republic prior 
to the ratification of the convention between the United States and France, 
concluded on the 30th of September, 1S00; that said claims were relinquished 
to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part con- 
sideration of the relinquishmeiit of certain national claims of France against 
the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums 
from the United States : 

Nathaniel H. Stone, administrator of John M. Forbes, surviving 
partner of the firm of J. M. & R. B. Forbes, twenty thousand six 
hundred and ninety-two dollars and twenty cents $20, 692. 20 

Russell Bradford, administrator of Joseph Russell, two thousand 

seven hundred and seventy-four dollars and forty-four cents 2,774.44 

By the Court. 
Filed December 19, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test: This 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



584 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

SHIP VENUS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. 

Vessel ship Venus, Henry Dashiell, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1001. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Baltimore Insur- 
ance Company, v. The United States. 
1550. Elizabeth H. Penn, administratrix of Thomas Higinbotham, v. The 

United States. 
169-4. David Stewart, administrator of William P. Stewart, surviving partner 

of the firm of David Stewart & Sons, v. The United States. 
1694. Elizabeth Campbell Murdock, administratrix of Archibald Campbell, v. 

The United States. 
2496. Nicholas L. Dashiell. administrator of Henry Dashiel, v. The United 

States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 28th day of March, 
1904. 

The claimants were represented by Curtis & Pickett, esqs., and the United 
States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the De- 
partment of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., -with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Venus, Henry Dashiell, master, although armed with 12 guns and 
carrying a crew of 25 men, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 29th day of 
June, 1799, from the port of Gibraltar bound for Batavia, in the island of Java. 
While in the peaceful pursuit of said voyage, on the 13th day of July following, 
she put into the harbor of St. Iago, one of the Cape de Verde Islands, for the 
purpose of obtaining a supply of fresh water and repairing damages to her rig- 
ging, and found the ship John, Levi Putnam, master, lying at anchor in said 
port. On the 14th day of said month of July, the Venus then being at anchor, 
the harbor was entered by three French frigates, the Concorde, the Medee, and 
the Franchise, under the command of Captain Landolphe. One hour after the 
arrival of the French fleet the Venus was boarded by a boat from the Medee, 
who ordered the master, the said Henry Dashiell, with his papers, on board the 
Concorde, a 50-gun frigate, sent the entire crew of the Venus below, and placed 
sentinels on board of her, and then went away. Shortly afterwards the said 
boat returned with 32 Frenchmen, who took out 18 of the crew of the Venus and 
carried them on board the Medee. The French frigates then hove up anchors, 
carried the Venus to sea, together with the said ship John. On the following 
day four others of the crew of the Venus were taken out of her, and a boat of 
the Concorde with a number of officers and men boarded the Venus and took 
possession of 31,000 Spanish milled dollars and four bundles of silk stockings, 
which they carried to the Concorde, hove overboard the guns of the Venus, and 
put on board 26 men, being the crew of the said ship John, and 34 English pris- 
oners, and gave the master, the said Henry Dashiell, a passport and ordered her 
as a cartel for America, where she arrived at the port of Baltimore, Md., on the 
25th day of August following. 

It appears that the Venus at the time of capture carried a commission, a let- 
ter of authority from the President of the United States, either under the pro- 
visions of the act of Congress approved June 25, 1798, or that approved July 9, 
1798 (1 Stat. L., 578). 

II. The Venus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 248ff tons 
burden; was built in the State of Pennsylvania in the year 1792, and was owned 
by the firm of David Stewart & Sons in the proportions of three-eighths ; Archi- 
bald Campbell, three-eighths; and Thomas Higinbotham, two-eighths, all of 
whom" were citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Venus at the time of capture consisted of a small invoice 
of silk stockings belonging to the master, and 31,000 Spanish milled dollars, of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 585 

which 30,000 were owned by the said David Stewart & Sons, Archibald Camp- 
bell, and Thomas Higinbotham in the same proportions in which they owned 
the vessel. The remaining $1,000 was the property of the master. 

IV. The losses by reason of the seizure of the Venus and her cargo were as 
follows : 

Value of specie on board f $31,000.00 

Invoice of silk stockings ' 570.00 

Premium of insurance paid 3, 500. 00 

Freight earnings 4, 144. 00 

Amounting in all to 39, 214. 00 

V. The said firm of David Stewart & Sons, Archibald Campbell, and Thomas 
Higinbotham effected insurance on said 30,000 Spanish dollars and a small 
amount of other cargo on said vessel in the sum of $20,000 with the Baltimore 
Insurance Company, paying therefor a premium of \1\ per cent. 

Thereafter, on November 29, 1799, the said company duly paid the said as- 
sured the sum of $19,600 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being 
the full amount of said insurance, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. 

VI. The losses of said David Stewart & Sons, Archibald Campbell, and 
Thomas Higinbotham were as follows : 

Value of specie owned by them $30, 000. 00 

Premium of insurance paid 3,500.00 

Freight earnings 4, 144. 00 

Amounting in all to 37,644.00 

Less insurance received 19,600.00 

Leaving a net loss to them of IS, 044. 00 

of which David Stewart & Sons was three-eighths, or $6,766.50; Archibald 
Campbell three-eighths, or $6,766.50 ; and Thomas Higinbotham, two-eighths, or 
$4,511. 

VII. The losses of Henry Dashiell, the master of the Venus, were as follows: 

Value of specie owned by him $1, 000. 00 

Invoice of silk stockings 570. 00 

Amounting in all to 1,570.00 

VIII. The firm of David Stewart & Sons was composed of David Stewart and 
his sons, David C. Stewart, John Stewart, and William P. Stewart, the last 
named being the surviving partner of the firm, but he did not become a member 
until 1802, a time subsequent to the losses sustained by the firm in consequence 
of the seizure of the Venus. He died unmarried, and with no heirs or next of 
kin except the children and descendants of the other members of the firm. All 
of the members of said firm were citizens of the United States. 

IX. The Baltimore Insurance Company was duly incorporated under the laws 
of the State of Maryland and authorized to carry on the business of marine and 
other insurance. David Stewart and John E. Semmes have been appointed 
receivers of said company by the circuit court of Baltimore, Md. 

X. The claimants have produced letters of administration upon the estates of 
the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they appear are the same 
persons who suffered loss through the seizure of the Venus, as set forth in 
the preceding findings. 

XL Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treatv between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 



586 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure was illegal, and the 
owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French 
Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States 
and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national 
claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled 
to the following sums from the United States : 

David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Baltimore In- 
surance Company, nineteen thousand six hundred dollars $19, 600. 00 

David Stewart, administrator of William P. Stewart, surviving 
partner of the firm of David Stewart & Sons, six thousand 
seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and fifty cents 6, 766. 50 

Elizabeth Campbell Murdock, administratrix of Archibald Campbell, 

six thousand seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and fifty cents 6, 766. 50 

Elizabeth H. Penn, administratrix of Thomas Higinbotham, three 
thousand eight hundred dollars 3, S00. 00 

Nicholas L. Dashiell, administrator of Henry Dashiell, one thousand 
five hundred and seventy dollars 1, 570. 00 

Total 38, 503. 00 

The defendants have filed a counterclaim, alleging that the original claimant, 
Thomas Higinbotham, was indebted to the United States in the sum of $1,551 
upon certain unpaid custom-house bonds. It appears that the said claimant 
was principal upon a custom-house bond for $1,551, numbered 1829, May 1, 1819, 
and it further appears in the collector's office at Baltimore that the said claim- 
ant made a payment on said bond in the sum of $840, leaving a balance due of 
$711, of which no record of payment appears in this case, and the said balance 
of $711 is deducted from the loss of said Thomas Higinbotham, to wit, $4,511, 
herein, leaving now due him the sum of $3,800, as above shown. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 11, 1904. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1904. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP GENEVA. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliation. (Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283.) 
Vessel sloop Geneva. Master, Giles Savage.] 

No. of case. Claimant. 

189. Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United 

States. 
204. Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United 

States. 
1907. George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch, r. The United 

States. 
2653. Margaret R, Riley, administratrix, etc., of Luther Savage, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of Decem- 
ber, 1904. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. 
Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with 
whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 587 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

Tlie court, upon the evidence and after bearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be 
as follows : 

1. The sloop Geneva, Giles Savage being then master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage on the 5th day of May, 1799, from Hartford, Conn., bound for the 
Danish island of St. John, in the West Indies. While peacefully pursuing said 
voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French. The circumstances 
attending the voyage and seizure of the Geneva, as set forth in her master's 
protest, are as follows : 

" Before the honorable William Hen. Rink, esq., governor of the Dutch part 
of said island, personally appeared Giles Savage, late commander of the sloop 
Geneva, who deposeth and saith that he was shipped on board the said sloop 
by Messrs. Riley, Savage & Co., residents at Hartford, in the State of Connecti- 
cut, North America, with orders from them to proceed on a voyage for the island 
of St. Johns, in the West Indies, and there -to dispose of his cargo to the best 
advantage ; that he accordingly sailed from said port of Hartford on the fifth 
day of May instant on the said voyage to St. Johns, (winds) being variable 
and nothing material happening until the 24th of the said month, having fair 
weather, and on observation at 12 o'clock on the same day, when he found him- 
self to be in latitude 18 15 north, longitude 62 degrees 52 minutes west, then 
steering west N. west ; that between 3 and 4 o'clock of same day saw four sail to 
the southward, one of which proved to be the French privateer the Two Friends, 
commanded by Charles Mendibow; that this deponent was hailed by the said 
schooner on her first coming up, and was ordered to heave to, after which they 
sent their boat on board said sloop Geneva, demanding of him and his mate to 
deliver all the papers that were on board ; immediately took their register, sail- 
ing orders, bills of lading, shipping bill, and papers of every description that was 
on board said sloop, and ordered all hands into the boat; that on his going on 
board the privateer the French captain asked this deponent where he was from, 
where he was bound, and to what place his people and cargo belonged ; that 
this deponent informed him, as before stated ; that after putting a prize master 
on board with some of his own people the sloop people were then put in irons 
in the said schooner's hold; that this deponent was then informed that the said 
privateer was bound immediately for St. Bartholomew with the above sloop 
Geneva, one other sloop, one schooner, and a ship in tow as prizes to the said 
privateer, but on the next day the said privateer made St. Martins with this 
deponent's sloop only in tow, when this deponent was landed amongst the rest 
of the prisoners on board said privateer, consisting of the master and crews 
belonging to the before-mentioned vessels in tow of said privateer on preceding 
evening ; he, this deponent, on the same day above stated, 25 May instant, was 
taken with his people before the commissary, Citizen Dormay, who, after exam- 
ining the deponent, asked him if he had any friends who would be security for 
his appearance when called on, when this deponent got Captain Bruce, a resident 

of said , to be his security ; that his people were carried, under a guard, 

to prison, but not ironed or very closely confined ; and this deponent further 
saith that the cargo on board said sloop Geneva, which was omitted to be men- 
tioned in the first part of this deponent's affidavit, consisted of horses, provi- 
sions, and so forth ; and lastly, the deponent further saith that not being able 

to obtain a regular protest in time from the notary public office, he 

obliged to take this mode of making his affidavit before the honorable the gov- 
ernor of the Dutch part of said island, and does thereby protest for himself and 
in behalf of the owners and underwriters and all others concerned in the sloop 
Geneva and her cargo against the owners, captain, and all others concerned in 
the said French privateer schooner Two Friends, and against all and everything 
else concerning or relating to the capt'r of the said sloop Geneva for all damages 
that may arise from said capt'r." 

June 7 following the Geneva and cargo were condemned and ordered sold 
for the benefit of the privateer Gourageuse, Captain Mendibourg, by the tribunal 
of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, and thereby became 
a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation, as stated in the decree, were as follows : 

First. The bill of lading, of which Captain Savage was the bearer, did not 
show for whose account and risks the cargo was shipped, which rendered it 
necessary for him to have a charter party, with which he was not provided. 

Second. That the said captain had neither crew list or sea letter. 



588 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

II. The Geneva was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 60 28/95 
tons burthen, built in Connecticut in the year 1795, and owned solely by Edward 
Danforth, Justus Riley, Luther Savage, Jonathan Danforth, Daniel Danforth, 
Josiah Savage, William Savage, and Edward Savage, composing the firm of 
Riley, Savage & Co., citizens of the United States, residing in the State of 
Connecticut. 

III. The cargo of the Geneva consisted of horses, beef, pork, fish, corn meal, 
rye flour, cheese, hams, lard, beans, walnuts, candles, soap, cars, grain, hay, 
pumps, and shoes. With the exception of the shoes, the cargo was owned by 
Messrs. Riley, Savage & Co. 

IV. The loss to the firm of Riley, Savage & Co., by reason of the seizure and 
condemnation of the Geneva, was as follows : 

Value of the vessel $2,480 

Freight earnings 1,000 

Value of the cargo, exclusive of the invoice of shoes 4, 340 

Premiums of insurance paid : : 380 

Amounting in all to 8, 150 

Deduct insurance received 3,300 

Net loss 4, 850 

V. June 4, 1799, Messrs. Riley, Savage & Co., through the agency of one Israel 
Munson, effected insurance on said vessel and cargo in the office of Peter C. 
Brooks, a citizen of the United States, in the city of Boston, in the sum of 
$2,300, paying, therefor a premium of 10 per cent, and in the additional sum of 
$1,000 on horses on the deck of the said sloop, paying therefor a premium of 
15 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, all of whom 
were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz : 

Crowell Hatch $800 

Samuel Wyllys Pomeroy 800 

John C. Jones 700 

David Greene 500 

Benjamin Cobb 500 

October 31, 1799, said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid to the said assured 
the sum of $3,300, by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of 
said underwriters of the sum subscribed by him. 

VI. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, February 7, 1804, for and in 
consideration of the sum of $4,900 to him paid by the said Peter C. Brooks, 
and the assumption by said Brooks of certain liabilities, the said Pomeroy 
assigned to said Brooks all advantages arising out of the underwriting of the 
said Pomeroy in the office of the said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 23,- 1S01, for and in 
consideration of the sum of $6,000 to him paid by the said Brooks and the 
assumption of liabilities by the said Brooks, the said Greene made a similar 
assignment to the said Brooks. 

VII. The firm of Riley, Savage & Co. was composed of said Edward Danforth, 
Justus Riley, Luther Savage, Jonathan Danforth, Daniel Danforth, Josiah Sav- 
age, William Savage, and Edward Savage, the said Luther Savage being the sur- 
vivor of the said firm. 

VIII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are, in fact, the same persons who suffered loss by reaon of the seizure 
and condemnation of the sloop Geneva, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 
4th of July, 1831. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 589 

the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand 
three hundred dollars $1, 300 

George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch, eight hundred 
dollars 800 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator, etc., of John C. Jones, seven hundred 
dollars 700 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator, etc., of Benjamin Cobb, five hundred 
dollars 500 

Margaret R. Riley, administratrix, etc., of Luther Savage, surviving 
partner of the firm of Riley, Savage & Co., four thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty dollars . 4, 850 

Total, eight thousand one hundred and fifty dollars 8. 150 

By the Court. 
Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. 

SHIP JANE. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 183. Ship 
Jane, James Barron, master.] 

No. of Claimants, 

case. 

2970. James L. Hubard, administrator of William Pennock. 
992. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receiver of the Maryland Insurance 
Company. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of December, 
1904. The claimants were represented by George A. King, Simon Lyon, William 
T. S. Curtis, and T. J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendant, by the 
Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The Court upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The ship Jane, James Barron, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Liverpool, England, bound for Norfolk, Va., November, 5, 1797. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas by the privateer 
Eagle, commissioned by the authority of the French Government, and sailing 
under the authority thereof, commanded by Captain Mallard, or Mallet, and car- 
ried to Porto Rico December 25, 1797. The master was there informed by the 
French consul that the ship having come from Liverpool was of itself fully 
sufficient to condemn vessel and cargo. The mate and crew were placed upon the 
privateer and were not permitted to remain in the Jane or to go ashore. Being 
thus situated, without money or credit, they were compelled to abandon the 
vessel and cargo, and the same became a total loss to the owners. 

II. The Jane was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 250 ff 
tons burthen, was built in Massachusetts in the year 1793, and was owned solely 
by William Pennock, a citizen of the United States. 



590 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The cargo of the Jane consisted of salt, stoneware, and earthenware of 
the value of 709 pounds, 17 shillings, 6 pence, sterling, amounting to $4.44 to the 
pound, to the value of $3,151.85, United States currency, and was owned solely 
by William Pennock, the owner of the vessel. 

IV. Said vessel was insured by said William Pennock, her owner, in the Mary- 
land Insurance Company, in the sum of $10,000, and the cargo for $3,333.33, the 
premium paid in each case being 15 per cent or $2,000, both policies being in 
the Maryland Insurance Company in favor of William Pennock, the owner of 
the vessel. Said Maryland Insurance Company afterwards paid to said William 
Pennock the amount of said policies less the customary abatement, amounting 
to $9,750 on the vessel and $3,251.33 on the cargo, a total of $13,001.33. 

V. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Jane were as 
follows : 

Value of vessel $10, 000. 00 

Value of cargo 3,151.85 

Premiums of insurance on vessel and cargo 2,000.00 

Freight 4, 000. 00 

Total 19, 151. 85 

Less insurance received 13, 001. 33 

Total loss to William Pennock 6, 150. 52 

The Maryland Insurance Company lost : 

Paid on vessel $9,750.00 

Paid on cargo 3, 251. 33 

Total loss to the Maryland Insurance Company 13, 001, 33 

VI. David Stewart and John E. Semmes are the duly appointed receivers of 
the Maryland Insurance Company. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the 
respective parties who suffered the original losses, and have otherwise proved 
to the satisfaction of the court that the persons whose estates they represent 
were the same persons who suffered losses by reason of the capture of the Jane. 

VII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole or 
in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in 
part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity upon the French 
Republic prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States 
and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United 
States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain 
national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are 
entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

No. 2970. James L. Hubard, administrator of the estate of William 
Pennock, six thousand one hundred and fifty dollars and fifty-two 
cents $6, 150. 52 

No. 992. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Mary- 
land Insurance Company, thirteen thousand and one dollars and 
thirty-three cents 13. 001. 33 

Total _ 19, 151. 85 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 591 

The Court of Claims further reports to Congress : 

That the defendants have produced in evidence a custom-house bond, bearing 
date July 14, 1815, to secure the payment of duties on imports given to the 
United States by William Pennock, of Norfolk, Va. The court finds that the 
sum of $1,548.85 became due upon said bond and no evidence has been produced 
to establish the payment thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 

SCHOONER AMELIA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 18S5 ; 23 Stat. L., 283). 

Schooner Amelia, Timothy Hall, master.] i 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

5553. Julius C. Cable, administrator of William Walter, deceased, v. The 
United States. 

2927. The New Haven Insurance Company v. The United States 

1133. Joseph Ogden, sole surviving executor of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The 
United States. 
159. Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix of Richard S. Hallett and Abra- 
ham S. Hallett, v. The United States. 

2013. Robert B. Lawrence, administrator of John R. Bowne, v. The United 
States. 

2013. Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of De- 
cember, 1904. The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. 
Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, and John W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United 
States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the De- 
partment of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General Louis A. Pradt. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The schooner Amelia, Timothy Hall, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
from New Haven, Conn., on the 24th day of October, 1798, bound for the island 
of Martinique, in the West Indies. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she 
was captured on the high seas on the 23d day of November, 1798, by the French 
privateers La Resolue, Capt. Antoine Triol, and the Deux Amis, Captain Daubas. 
On the 2d day of December, 179S, the Amelia and her cargo were condemned by 
the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basse Terre, Guadaloupe, whereby the said 
vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 

1. That the Amelia was dispatched from New Haven, bound for Martinique, a 
country delivered up to the English and occupied and defended by the emigrants. 

2. That the vessel was not provided with a role d'equipage, invoice, and bill 
of lading. 

II. The Amelia was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 72 \§ 
tons burthen ; was built at New Haven, Conn., in the year 1796, and was owned 
by Henry Daggett, William Walter, and Andon Clinton, citizens of the United 
States. 

III. The cargo of the Amelia at the time of capture consisted of lumber, 10 
horses, oxen, sheep, and provisions, and was owned by sundry persons. 

It does not appear that the neutrality of the cargo was established before the 
French prize court. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Amelia was 
as follows : 

The value of the vessel $2, SS0 

Freight earnings for the voyage 1, 200 

Amounting in all to -_., 4,080 



592 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

V. On December 22, 1798, the New Haven Insurance Company insured Moses 
Todd and Hezekiah Todd, in their own names as well as in the names of those 
interested therein, in the sum of $200 on said vessel at a premium of 21 per 
cent. 

Thereafter the New Haven Insurance Company paid to William Walter, one 
of the owners of the vessel, the said sum of $200 as and for a total loss. 

VI. The losses of said William Walter by reason of said capture and con- 
demnation were as follows : 

One-third value of vessel $960 

One-third freight earnings 400 

Total 1, 360 

Less insurance received 200 

Net loss to him of 1,160 

VII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estate of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are the same persons who have suffered loss through the capture and 
condemnation of the Amelia, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

VIII. Said claims, were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, 
and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned, except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- 
tween the United States and France concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of 
certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Julius C. Cable, administrator of William Walter, one thousand one 

hundred and sixty dollars $1, 160 

The New Haven Insurance Company, two hundred dollars 200 

The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 
Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] Abchibald Hopkins, 

Chief Clerk. 

BRIG ISABELLA AND ANN. 

[French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Brig Isabella and Ann; 

master, William Duer.] 

No. Name of claimant. 

508. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America. 
3f>97. Alexander Proudfit, administrator Robert Ralston. 

conclusions of fact. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 28th day of January, 
1892. The claimants were represented by Russell Duane. and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 593 

Justice, Alexander C. Moore, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General 
John B. Cotton. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The brig Isabella and Ann of Philadelphia, sailed from the port of Wil- 
mington, Del., on the 33th of October, 1798, bound for the West Indies. On the 
26th of November, when in latitude 13° N. and 57° 30' W., the brig was boarded 
by the French privateer Le Democrat, which fired a shot over her, removed the 
captain and crew, and plundered her of her rigging and stores. A prize crew 
was put on board the brig, who took her to Guadaloupe, where she was con- 
demned on the 2d of December, 1798, by the tribunal of commerce at Basseterre. 
The causes assigned were that the vessel had cleared out for the West Indies 
generally, that she had no role d' equipage, and that her sea letter did not desig- 
nate the port to which she was bound. No other ground of condemnation was 
alleged. 

II. The Isabella and Ann was a duly registered vessel, measuring 131 32/95 
tons, built at Philadelphia in 1790, and owned in equal parts by Robert Ralston 
and William Hemphill, as appears by the register, July 15, 1797. 

III. The cargo consisted of provisions and merchandise owned in equal parts 
by Robert Ralston, William Hemphill, and William Duer, of whom the first 
two were American merchants and the last the master of the vessel. 

IV. The value of the vessel was $4, 500 

The value of the cargo 8, 717 

The value of the freight 2, 233 

Commissions of the master : 1, 000 

Premiums of insurance on cargo 2, 212 

Expenses 64 

Amounting in all to 18, 726 

SPECIAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE SEVERAL CASES. 

V. In case No. 1597. — Robert Ralston was the owner of one-half of the vessel 
and one-third of the cargo. He procured insurance for himself and the other 
owners to the amount of $3,500 on the vessel and $8,000 on the cargo. For this 
latter insurance Robert Ralston paid as his portion of the premium $466.66, 
and subsequently received from the insurers the sums of $1,715 and $2,613.33, 
respectively. 

The losses of Robert Ralston by reason of the capture of the Isabella and Ann 
and her cargo, for which he became entitled to indemnity, are as follows : 

One-half value of vessel $2, 250. 00 

One-third value of cargo 2, 905. 67 

One-half value of freight 1, 116. 50 

One-third premium paid for insurance on cargo 466. 66 

One-half premium paid for insurance on vessel 306. 00 

Amounting in all to 7, 044. 83 

Less amount received for insurance ($1,715 +$2,613.33) 4,328.33 

Leaving amount of losses 2, 716. 50 

VI. In case No. 508. — The president and directors of the Insurance Company 
of North America were, at the time of this capture, in 1798, a corporation duly 
organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and authorized to carry 
on the business of marine insurance. On the 3d of December, 1798, they issued 
to Robert Ralston, for himself and the other owners, a policy of $3,500, upon 
the brig Isabella and Ann, for a voyage to the West Indies, and a policy of 
$8,000 upon the cargo of the said vessel, and a policy of $1,000 on commissions. 
Upon these policies the company subsequently paid to the insured, for the cap- 
ture of the said vessel and cargo, and loss of commissions, and expenses, the 
sum of $12,314.59, and the owners abandoned the vessel and cargo as a total 
loss. 

The losses of the president and directors of the Insurance Company of North 
America, by reason of the capture of the Isabella and Ann, and her cargo 
amounted to $12,314.59. 

S. Rep. 382, 60 38 



594 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VII. In case No. 1597. — The claimant, Alexander Proudfit, has produced let- 
ters of administration for the estate of Robert Ralston, deceased, and has other- 
wise proved to the satisfaction of the court that Robert Ralston, of whose estate 
he is administrator, was the same person who was an owner of the Isabella and 
Ann and her cargo in 1798, and a citizen of the United States. 

The owners William Hemphill and William Duer have not appeared. 

VIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1S19, and were not allowed in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- 
tween the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of 
September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- 
ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration -of the relin- 
quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and 
that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
twelve thousand three hundred fourteen dollars and fifty-nine cents ($12,314.59). 

Alexander Proudfit, administrator of Robert Ralston, two thousand seven 
hundred sixteen dollars and fifty cents ($2,716.50). 

By the Court. 

Filed November 14, 1892. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2Sth day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER ZILPHA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. 
Schooner Zilpha, Samuel Briard, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

4153. Sarah N. Burleigh, administratrix of Samuel Briard, v. The United States. 
2166. Joseph H. Thacher, administrator of John Wardrobe, v. The UnitedStates. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of Decern* 
ber, 1904. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, John C. Fay, and 
John W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- 
General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, 
esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows: 

I. The schooner Zilpha, Samuel Briard, master, sailed on a commercial voy- 
age on or about the 30th day of November, 1796, from Portsmouth, N. H., bound 
for the island of Tobago, where she arrived on the 31st day of December fol- 
lowing. While at Tobago the Zilpha disposed of her outward cargo and took a 
return cargo on board and sailed thence February 20, 1797, homeward bound to- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 595 

Portsmouth. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high 
seas on the 24th day of the said month by the French privateer Hirondelle, Capt 
Michael Sebor, who took her to a bay on the southwest part of Porto Rico, off 
Cape Roxo. 

It does not appear that there were any condemnation proceedings as to said 
vessel and cargo or what disposition was made of same other than that they 
became a total loss to the owners. 

The facts as to the seizure of the Zilpha and the circumstances subsequent 
thereto are set forth in the protest of the master as follows : 

[From Am. State Papers, p. 28, vol. 1, Timothy Pickering's report, June 21, 1797 — 

Schooner Zilpha, Briard.] 

By this public instrument of protest be it known unto all whom it may con- 
cern, that on the day of the date hereof, before me, Christopher Ellery, esq., 
legally elected and engaged public notary, residing in Newport, in the State of 
Rhode Island, in the United States of America, cometh Samuel Briard, late 
master of the schooner Zilpha, of Portsmouth, owned by John Wardrobe and 
the said Samuel Briard, both citizens of the United States, and on his oath, 
solemnly administered by me, the said notary, deposeth and declareth that he 
sailed in and with said schooner from Portsmouth aforesaid, which is in the 
State of New Hampshire, in said United States, on the 30th day of November 
last, bound to the island of Tobago, the said schooner being laden with beef, 
oil, fish, lumber, and other things, and properly fitted for the voyage, and 
arrived there on the 31st day of December following; that there having sold 
said cargo and received in return for the same and for a part of the cargo left ' 
there on credit in August last by John Flagg, then master of the said schooner, 
42 puncheons of rum, 1 tierce and 1 barrel of sugar on account of said Ward- 
robe and Briard, and also 2 .puncheons of rum on account of said Flagg, and 
likewise 2 puncheons of rum belonging to the mate of the said schooner, he left 
the island on the 20th day of February last, bound to said Portsmouth, and pro- 
ceeded on his proper course for the Mona Passage, to the leeward of the island 
of Porto Rico, until the 24th day of said February, when, having said passage 
clearly in sight, he was intercepted, forcibly seized, and detained by a privateer 
schooner mounting six carriage guns, belonging to citizens of the French Re- 
public, named the Hirondale, and commanded by Michael Seber, who, imme- 
diately on coming up, ordered the course of the schooner Zilpha to be altered, 
and that she should steer with him close in with the land, sending his boats on 
board the Zilpha, and directing the captain to come on board his privateer with 
all his papers and two of his men, and putting on board the Zilpha a prize 
master and a boat's crew, and conducting her after the privateeer, with the 
said master and two men in the Hirondale, all night till the next morning, when 
both vessels came to anchor in a bay on the southwest part of the island of 
Porto Rico, called Cabo Roxo (or Cape Roxa), and when the said schooner 
was forthwith stripped of all her sails and rigging, provisions, and other things ; 
that the following day the schooner was moored by the captors close in with the 
shore, and the said master and crew of the Zilpha obliged to quit her, by order 
of the said commander of the said privateer, he having previously taken pos- 
session of said Zilpha's log book, register, and every other paper concerning or 
appertaining to her whole voyage, which papers, etc., the said Capt. Seber 
declared would be sent to St. Domingo, in the island of Hispanolia, but at what 
time did not say, though at the time there was not even the most distant appear- 
ance of any opportunity to go down to St. Domingo ; that the said master and 
crew of tbe said Zilpha having nothing to subsist on, for their maintenance 
were obliged to go on board the brig Resolution, then lying in said Cabo Raxo, 
which brig had before been taken by a French privateer, since sold, and com- 
manded by Capt. Samuel Bowdish, of and bound to New London, and was the 
only refuge for them ; that the aforementioned privateer sailed on the 27th of 
said February, leaving said master no other satisfaction than a certificate 
signed by said captain, stating that he had taken the said Zilpha, and declaring 
also that he was governed by orders to those by which he acted, and which 
authorized them to capture all American vessels going to or coming from Eng- 
lish ports in the West Indies; that said brig Resolution left Cabo Raxo on the 
1st day of March instant, on board of which vessel said Briard and the people 
of his vessel became passengers, together with four other American captains 
that had been captured by the French privateers; that at the port of Cabo 
Raxo there was no officer acting as notary public; and that he has not, since 
his capture aforesaid, found it possible to enter his protest before this day, 



596 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

being the day after the arrival of the said brig in Newport aforesaid ; and that 
his mate and people are prevented joining him in this protest, by reason of 
their having gone aboard a vessel bound to Newbury, nearer to their homes 
than the port to which said brig Resolution was bound. 

Samuel Briabd. 

II. The Zilpha was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 94|f 
tons burthen ; was built at Hallowell, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned 
by Samuel Briard and John Wardrobe, citizens of the United States, residing in 
Portsmouth, N. H. 

III. The cargo of the Zilpha at the time of capture consisted of 42 puncheons 
of rum, 1 tierce and 1 barrel of sugar owned by said Samuel Briard and John 
Wardrobe, and 4 puncheons of rum owned by parties who have not appeared in 
this case. 

There was also a small amount of provisions on board belonging to said 
Briard and Wardrobe. 

IV. The losses by reason of the seizure of the Zilpha and her cargo, so far 
as claims have been filed in this court, were as follows : 

Value of the vessel $3,500.00 

Freight Earnings 791.00 

Value of cargo 6, 181. 48 

Amounting in all to 10,472.48 

Loss to Samuel Briard 5,236.24 

Loss to John Wardrobe 5, 236. 24 

V. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the 
Zilpha, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Sarah N. Burleigh, administratrix, etc., estate of Samuel Briard, five 
thousand two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-four cents_ $5, 236. 24 

Joseph H. Thacher, administrator estate of John Wardrobe, five thou- 
sand two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-four cents 5, 236. 24 

Total, ten thousand four hundred and seventy-two dollars and 
forty-eight cents 10, 472. 48 

By the Court. 
Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of February, A. D. 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claim*. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 597 

SCHOONER LOVELY LASS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Schooner Lovely Lass, William Moore, master. 3 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2864. George H. Barrett, administrator of John Foster, v. The United States. 
2662. C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Conway Whittle, v. The United 

States. 
2662. C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Francis Whittle, v. The United States. 
3149. Henry A. T. Granbery, administrator of John Granbery, v. The United 

States. 
3149. James L. Hubard, administrator of William Pennock, v. The United 

States. 
3149. R. Manson Smith, administrator of Francis Smith, v. The United States. 
3149. John O. G. Allmond, administrator of Harrison Allmond, v. The United 

States. 
3149. Barton Myers, administrator of Moses Myers, v. The United States. 
3149. Bassett A. Marsden, administrator of Benjamin Pollard, v. The United 

States. 
2101. Montgomery Fletcher, administrator of John Walter Fletcher, v. The 

United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of Novem- 
ber, 1905. 

The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. Clagett, 
William T. S. Curtis, Theo. J. Pickett, George A. King, John St. C. Bfooks, and 
Rutherford B. H. Lyon, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attor- 
ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows: 

I. The schooner Lovely Lass, William Moore, master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage on the 4th day of June, 1797, from Port au Prince, Santo Domingo, 
bound for Norfolk, Va. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized 
on the high seas by the French barges Le Furet, Captain Tamblay, and Le 
Sans Culottise, Captain Michand. 

On the 14th day of June, 1797, the said vessel and cargo were condemned 
by the French prize tribunal sitting at Cape Frangois, in the French portion 
of Santo Domingo, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 
The ground of condemnation as set forth in the decree is as follows : 
That said schooner had been taken sailing from Port au Prince, the proper 
place for her destination at the moment of her departure from Norfolk, and 
that Port au Prince is one of the harbors of the colony in open rebellion against 
the laws of the Republic, and put in state of permanent siege by decree of the 
commission delegated by the French Government to the Windward Islands. 

II. The Lovely Lass belonged to the port of Portsmouth, Va., and was owned 
by John Foster, a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Lovely Lass at the time of her capture consisted of 
sugar, and was owned by said John Foster, the owner of the vessel. 

IV. The loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Lovely Lase 
and her cargo were as follows : 

The value of the vessel $3,500 

The freight earnings 440 

The value of the cargo 2,090 

Premiums of insurance paid 500 

Amounting in all to 6,530 

V. May 16, 1797, John Foster insured said vessel in the office of John Gran- 
bery, at Norfolk, Va., in the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000), paying 
therefor a premium of twenty-five per cent. Said policy was underwritten by 



598 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the following persons, among others, all of whom were citizens of the United 
States, in the amounts set opposite their names : 

Benjamin Pollard $200 

Francis Smith 300 

William Pennock 300 

Moses Myers 200 

Conway Whittle 300 

Francis Whittle 300 

John Kearnes also underwrote on said policy for one hundred dollars ($100), 
but failed to pay said insurance. 

Thereafter all of said underwriters on said policy, with the exception of said 
John Kearnes, through their agent, John Granbery, paid to the insured the 
sum of one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900), as and for a total loss on 
said policy. 

The losses of John Foster were as follows : 

The value of the vessel $3, 500 

The freight earnings 440 

The value of the cargo 2,090 

Premiums of insurance paid 500 

Amounting in all to 6,530 

Less insurance received 1, 900 

Leaving a net loss of 4, 630 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and 
condemnation of the Lovely Lass and her cargo, as set forth in the preceding 
findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
France on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemuity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- 
tween the French Republic and the United States concluded on the 30th day of 
September, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- 
ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relin- 
quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and 
that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

George H. Barrett, administrator of John Foster, deceased, four thou- 
sand six hundred and thirty dollars $4,630.00 

C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Conway Whittle, deceased, three 
hundred dollars 300. 00 

C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Francis Whittle, deceased, three 
hundred dollars : 300. 00 

R. Manson Smith, administrator of Francis Smith, deceased, three 
hundred dollars 300. 00 

James L. Hubard, administrator of William Pannock, deceased, three 
hundred dollars 300. 00 

Barton Myers, administrator of Moses Myers, deceased, two hundred 
dollars 200.00 

Bassett A. Marsden, administrator of Benjamin Pollard, deceased, 
two hundred dollars 200. 00 

Amounting in all to six thousand two hundred and thirty 
dollars 6, 230. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 599 

The claims of the representatives of the estates of John Granbery, Harrison 
Alimond, and John Walter Fletcher are not proved. 

By the Court. 
Filed November 13, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of December, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SHIP CHACB. 

/ 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Acts of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 
1, Supplement to R. S., 2d. ed., 471. Vessel ship Ciiace, master, Thomas Johnston.] 

No. of 

case. ' Claimant. 

419. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Erooks, v. The United 

States. 
1641. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
2832. David Greene Ha skins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United 

States. 
4267. George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 26th day of January, 
1904. The claimants were represented by Theodore J. Pickett and William T. 
S. Curtis and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through 
his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Chace, Thomas Johnston, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
laden with lumber on July 29, 1794, from Boston, bound to Norfolk, in Virginia, 
where she duly arrived and discharged her cargo, and sailed thence for Fal- 
mouth, in England, laden with a cargo of tobacco, where she duly arrived, and 
sailed thence for Havre de Grace, in France, laden with the same cargo, and 
there discharged the same. On sailing from Havre de Grace she made various 
voyages seeking 'freight to and from ports in France, Spain, and England, and 
also went to Bremen, and likewise to Portugal, sometimes in ballast and at 
others laden with cargoes not contraband, and finally sailed from Lisbon on the 
29th day of September, 1797, bound to Baltimore. 

While peacefully pursuing the last-named voyage, she was seized on the 17th 
day of January, 1798, in sight of the harbor of Basseterre, Guadaloupe, for 
which port she was steering in distress for want of water and provisions, hav- 
ing been driven out of her course by storms, by the French privateer Proserpine, 
Captain Michel, and conducted into said port of Basseterre, and there condemned 
as good prize on or about the 24th day of January, 1798, by the tribunal of 
commerce there sitting, whereby both vessel and cargo became a total loss to the 
owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows, viz : 

Considering that since the month of July, 1794 (old style), the time when the 
said ship Chace sailed from Boston bound to Norfolk, she has altered her 
course ; that she did not go to the place of her destination ; that she appears to 
have been sometimes in to Spain, at others to England and to France, and that 
by her thus altering her course there is reason to suspect a connivance with the 
enemies of the Republic, as well in France as elsewhere ; that in the whole pro- 
ceeding there does not appear a French document from any of the constituted 
authorities to prove the rectitude of her commerce in France. 

Considering finally that he (the master) does not possess any sea letter. 

II. The Chace was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 338 ff f° ns 
burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1791 ; owned solely, except as here- 
inafter stated, by James Tisdale, a citizen of the United States, and registered 
at the port of Dighton, Mass. 



600 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

It appears that Thomas Johnston, master of the Chace, on the 16th day of 
September, 1797, executed a bottomry bond on said vessel to James Wilson, of 
London, by which he received the sum of £2,500, which said bond was duly 
canceled, payment therein having been made. 

III. At the time of the seizure of the Chace she had a cargo of salt and mats, 
but no claim has been filed herein on behalf of any person claiming to represent 
the owners of said cargo. 

IV. The 'loss to James Tisdale by reason of the seizure of the Chace was as 
follows : 

Value of the vessel $13, 534. 00 

Freight earnings 5, 413. 00 

Amounting in all to IS, 947. 00 

V. It is alleged that one Joseph Blake and David Greene effected insurance 
in the office of Peter C. Brookes in the sum of $10,000 on the said vessel and 
$4,000 on the freight for the voyage from Lisbon to Baltimore, paying therefor 
a premium of 6 per cent, by policies underwritten by sundry persons, citizens 
of the United States, and were afterwards paid by said underwriters the sum 
of $14,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

It does not appear that said David Greene and Joseph Blake had any interest 
in said vessel or the freight ; neither does it appear that they acted as agents 
for the owner of said vessel. 

VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and con- 
demnation of the ship Chace, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not 
a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d of February, 1S19, and was not allowed in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treatv between the United States and France of the 
4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which 
has never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owner had valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800 ; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- 
tain national claims of France against the United States ; and that the claimant 
is entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, eighteen hundred 

nine hundred and forty-seven dollars $18, 947. 00 

By the Court. 
Filed October 30, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of December, 1905. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 601 

SCHOONER WHIM. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283.) 
Vessel schooner Whim, John Boyd, master. 1970 : Frances Heiskell Ridout, adminis- 
tratrix de bonis bon of William Wilson, deceased, v. The United States.] 

PBELIMINABY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 21st day of May, 1901. 

The claimant was represented by John St. C. Brookes, esq., and the United 
States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the 
Department of Justice, Charles W. Russell, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same with briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be as follows : 

I. The schooner Whim, John Boyd, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
or about October 18, 1797, from Alexandria, Va., bound for Surinam. 

While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high seas by 
the French privateer La Proserpine, Captain Michel, and carried into Guade- 
loupe, where said vessel and cargo were condemned by the French tribunal of 
commerce sitting at Basseterre, on December 2, 1797, whereby the same became 
a total loss to the owners. 

The decree of condemnation is as follows : 

" In the name of the French people. 

" The tribunal of commerce established in the island of Guadeloupe, sitting 
in the city of Basseterre (in the said island), at its sitting of the 11th. Fri- 
maire, year six of the French Republic, and one indivisible. 

" Having seen the minutes of the capture of the schooner Whim, Capt. John 
Boyd, coming from Alexandria, taken by the privateer La Proserpine, Captain 
Michel ; the interrogatories made before the municipal administration of this 
commune on the 6th instant ; the extract of the English papers found on the 
said schooner by the Citoyen Bernier, interpreter, and the minutes of the naval 
officers, commissaries, named by the vice-admiral of the date of this day ; the 
tribunal considering that one-half of the crew in English, as shown by the 
testimony of a part of the said crew ; that the owner and the captain prove 
their naturalization only by informal certificate of the months of August and 
May last ; that since the vessel commanded by the same captain has made a 
voyage to Barbados, which proves that they had renounced their supposed 
naturalization ; 

" Considering that the crew list was for the West Indies, and that the word 
Surinam has been added on the voyage and is of a foreign hand according to 
the deposition of part of the crew ; 

" Considering, further, that according to the deposition of the ship's cook it 
appears that part of the papers have been burnt. 

" The tribunal deciding in favor and allowing the requisition of the com- 
missary of the executive directory, in applying article 9 of the rules of the 23d 
of June, 1704, which reads as follows : 

" ' Will also be good prizes' all foreign ships, etc., the crew of which shall be 
composed of seamen subject of enemy States.' 

"Article 4 of the decree of the agents of the executive directory of the Wind- 
ward Islands, of the thirteenth Pluviose last, which reads as follows : 'All 
vessels captured whose clearances shall be West Indies will be good prizes/ 
And article 6 of the rules of the 21st October, 1744, which reads as follows : ' His 
Majesty desires that all vessels taken, of whatever nature, be they enemies, 
neutrals, or allies, from which it will be shown that papers have been thrown 
overboard will be good prizes.' In making the burning of the papers similar 
to their being thrown overboard the tribunal allowing the requisition of the 
commissary of the executive directory declares the schooner Whim, Capt. John 
Boyd, a good prize, and orders in consequence thereof that she be sold, with 
her rigging, apparel, furniture, and cargo, an inventory of the whole being 
previously made, and that the proceeds of the said sale will be for the benefit 
of the capturers, owners, and all persons interested in the said privateer La 
Proserpine." 

It does not appear that Captain Boyd was interrogated about the circum- 
stances leading to the finding of the prize court that, according to the deposition 
of the ship's cook, it appeared that part of the papers had been burned, nor 



602 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

that he was called upon for denial or explanation, nor that he had any knowl- 
edge of any allegation of such burning, or statement, which might form the 
basis of a conclusion to that effect, had been made. 

It does not appear who, if anyone, was charged with having burned part of 
the papers, and at what time, whether sailor or officer. 

II. The Whim was a duly registered vessel of United States of lOOgV tons 
burden ; was built at Cohasset, Mass., and was owned solely by William Wilson, 
a citizen of the United States and a resident of Alexandria, Va. 

III. The cargo of the Whim at time of capture consisted of flour and bread, 
and was owned by said William Wilson, the owner of the vessel. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Whim 
were as follows : 

Value of the vessel $3,000 

Freight earnings i 1, 670 

Value of the cargo 5, 773 

Total loss 10, 443 

V. The said William Wilson was adjudicated an insolvent under the act of 
Congress for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia, 
and made an assignment in insolvency under the said act on June 1, 1818, of 
all his property of every description in trust for the use of his creditors. 

VI. The claimant, Frances H. Ridout, has produced letters of administration 
for the estate of William Wilson, deceased, and has otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that William Wilson, of whose estate she is adminis- 
tratrix, was the same person who suffered loss by reason of the capture of the 
Whim, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

VII. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and 
was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 
4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in her representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which 
has never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal and the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- 
tain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant 
is entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

Frances Hieskell Ridout, administratrix de bonis non of William Wilson, 
deceased, ten thousand four hundred and forty-three dollars and no cents 
($10,443). 

By the Coubt. 

Filed January S, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 12th day of January, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER ACTIVE. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Schooner Active, Patrick Drummond, master. 
No. 1621. William D. Hill, administrator of Mark L. Hill, v. The United States.] 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 1st day of February, 
1906. The claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. 
Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with 
whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 603 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The schooner Active, Patrick Drummond, master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage on the 11th day of October, 1794, from Hull, England, bound for New 
York. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas 
on or about the sixth day of February, 1795, by the French privateers Sans 
Pareil, Tiranicicle, and Curcus, and taken into Guadaloupe and condemned by 
the tribunal of commerce, whereby said vessel and her cargo became a total 
loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows : 

1. That the greater part of the merchandise composing the cargo was the 
property of Englishmen. 

2. That two-thirds of the ct-ew was composed of sailors subjects of a hostile 
state. 

II. The Active was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 121 f| 
tons burden ; was built at Georgetown, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned 
by Patrick Drummond, John Rogers, Mark L. Hill, and Alexander Drummond, 
citizens of the United States, residing in Georgetown, Mass., in the proportion 
of one-fourth each. 

III. The cargo of the Active at the time of capture consisted of earthenware, 
lead, iron, hardware, woolens, canvas, and shot, and was owned by sundry 
citizens of the United States, none of whom have appeared in this case. 

IV. The loss to said Mark L. Hill, the only claimant in this case, growing 
out of the seizure and condemnation of the Active, was as follows : 

One-fourth value of vessel $1, 518. 55 

One-fourth freight earnings 121. 47 

Total 1,640.02 

V. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the estate 
of said Mark L. Hill, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that said Hill is the same person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure 
and condemnation of the Active as set forth in the preceding findings. 

VI. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1S03, and was not 
a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which 
has never been assigned. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Septem- 
ber, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of 
the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of 
certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- 
ant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

William D. Hill, administrator of Mark L. Hill, one thousand six 

hundred and forty dollars and two cents $1, 640. 02 



Filed February 5, 1906. 



By the Court. 



A true copy. 

Test this 8th day of February, A, D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



604 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

BRIG RUBY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Ves- 
sel, brig Ruby, Luke Keefe, master.] 
No. of 
case Claimants. 

323. Arthur P. Cushing, administrator of Marston Watson, v. The United 

States. 

324. Arthur P. Cushing, administrator of Marston Watson, v. The United 

States. 
1049. Frederic Dodge, administrator of Matthew Bridge, v. The United States. 
954. Thomas H. Perkins, surviving executor of Thomas H. Perkins, v. The 

United States. 
1505. James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, v. 

The United States. 

3634. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United 

States. 
George G. King, administrator of James S<jptt, v. The United States. 
Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United 

States. 
William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United 

States. 
Charles G. Davis, administrator of Isaac P. Davis, v. The United States. 
Julia A. Cotting, administrator of Uriah Cotting, v. The United States. 
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Charles Sigourney, v. The United 

States. 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicolas Gilman, v. The United States. 
John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 
Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United 

States. 

3635. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United 

States. 
Charles A. Welch, administrator of William Stackpole, v. The United 

States. 
William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United 
States. 
3290. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United 

States. 
Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, v. The United States. 
James S. English, administrator of Thomas English, v. The United 

States. 
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Eben Preble, v. The United States. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
Charles A. Davis, administrator of Samuel Brown, v. The United States. 
1577. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United 
States. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United 

States. 
Robert Grant, administrator of Will Powell, v. The United States. 
Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 
Gordon Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, v. The United States. 
Charles A. Davis, administrator of Samuel Brown, v. The United States. 
2256. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
3066. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United 
States. 
Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. 
Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. 
87. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, v. The United 
States. 
1692. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United 

States. 
3741. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. , 

These cases were retried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of Novem- 
ber, 1905. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. j605 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pick- 
ett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was 
Assistant' Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The brig Rudy, Luke Keefe, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
November 22, 179S, from Boston, bound to Holland. While peacefully pursuing 
said voyage the Rudy was seized on the high seas on or about December 30, 
179S, by the French privateer Bougainville and carried into the port of Concar- 
neau, and both vessel and cargo condemned as good prize on the first ventose, 
seventh year of the French Republic (February 19, 1799), by the tribunal of 
-commerce of Quimper. From this decree appeal was taken by the master of the 
Rudy to the civil tribunal of the department of Finnisterre,. which, on the 21st 
ventose, seventh year of the French Republic (March 11, 1799), decreed the 
release of said vessel and cargo and ordered the restoration of same to Captain 
Keefe. From this last decision appeal was taken to the council of prizes at 
Paris, which finally condemned both vessel and cargo as good prize on the 28th 
thermidor, eighth year of the French Republic (August 15, 1800). 

The grounds of condemnation, as stated in the decree of the council of prizes, 
were as follows : 

First. That a jettison was made from the ship Rudy at the time of the cap- 
ture, which was cause for suspicion when taken into consideration with other 
•circumstances attending the affair and notably with the performance after the 
first shot from the cruiser, which was obliged to summons by a second shot. 

Second. That Capt. Luke Keefe is designated in the role d'equipage as having 
been born at Wexford, without indicating any country or government to which 
this place belonged; that he replied in his examination of the 1st Pluviose, 
seventh year, made before the justice of the peace, that Wexford was in the 
United States ; and, finally, in the verbal process of the 4th of the same month, 
declared that he was mistaken as to this designation, as Wexford was in Ire- 
land, under the dominion of Great Britain, and that there is no place of this 
name in the United States. 

Third. That Felix Neel, lieutenant of said ship, is borne on the role d'equipage 
as having been born at Philadelphia, and has stated in his examination that he 
was born at Wexford, in Ireland, circumstances which indicate fraud on all 
sides. 

II. The Rudy was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 153 H tons 
burden, built in Massachusetts in the year 3790 and owned solely by Matthew 
Bridge, a citizen of the United States and resident of Boston, in the State of 
Massachusetts. 

III. The cargo of the Rudy consisted of sugar, coffee, tobacco, and some wax, 
and was owned by said Matthew Bridge, James and Thomas H. Perkins, George 
H. Apthorp, Moses Wheeler, and said Luke Keefe, and Davenport & Tucker, all 
of whom were citizens of the United States. No claims have been filed on behalf 
of the above owners of the cargo, with the exception of said Matthew Bridge 
and James and Thomas H. Perkins. 

IV. The losses by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Rudy, as far 
as claims have been filed in this court and established by the evidence, were as 
follows : 

Value of the portion of the cargo owned by Matthew Bridge $14, 081. 56 

Premium of insurance paid by Matthew Bridge 2, 880. 00 

Value of the portion of the cargo owned by James and Thomas H. 

Perkins 2, 242. 25 

Premium of insurance paid by James and Thomas H. Perkins 375. 00 

Value of the vessel 5, 292. 00 

Freight earnings 2, 520. 00 

Proportion of expenses of defending vessel and cargo before the 

French courts 1, 669. 60 

Amounting in all to 29,060.41 



606. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 



V. The losses to the different claimants by reason of said capture and con- 
demnation were as follows : 

Case 1049. Matthew Bridge was the owner of a portion of the cargo of the 
Ruby. 

On November 10, 1798, he procured a policy of insurance on his portion of the 
cargo on the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $16,000, paying therefor a 
premium of 18 per cent. Said policy was underwritten by the following persons, 
all of whom were citizens of the United States, in the sums set opposite their 
names, respectively : 



John C. Jones $1, 000 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 1, 000 

Orowell Hatch 1,000 

Will Powell 1,000 

James Prince 500 

Samuel Dexter 500 

Marston Watson 1, 000 

Samuel Brown 2,000 



William Gray, jr $1,000 

Benjamin Homer 500 

William Smith '. 1,000 

Daniel D. Rogers___„ 1, 000 

William Clapp 1, 000 

William Bordman 500 

Tuthill Hubbart 2,000 

Benjamin Bussey 1, 000 



Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$17,027.30, being a loss to said underwriters of the full amount underwritten by 
each, with an additional loss of 6.42 per cent as the proportion due from said 
underwriters on account of expenses incurred in defense of said vessel before 
the French prize courts. 

His losses were as follows : 

Value of his portion of the cargo . $14, 0S1. 56 

Premium of insurance paid 2, 880. 00 

Value of vessel 5, 292. 00 

Freight earnings 2, 520. 00 

Proportion of expenses paid - 1,494.08 



Amounting in all to 26,267.64 

Deduct insurance received 17,027.30 



9, 240. 34 

Perkins were owners of a part of the 



Net loss 

VI. Case 954. James and Thomas H. 
cargo. 

On May 17, 1799, they obtained thereon from the Boston Marine Insurance 
Company a policy of insurance in the sum of $2,500 at a premium of 15 per cent. 
Thereafter said company duly paid to the said assured the sum of $2,675.52, 
being the face of said policy, with an additional loss to said company of $175.52 
as the proportion due from said company of the expenses incurred in the defense 
of said vessel in the French prize courts. 

Their losses were as follows : 

Value of their portion of the cargo__ ! $2, 242. 25 

Premium of insurance paid 375. 00 

Proportion of expenses paid 175. 52 



Amounting in all to 2, 792. 77 

Deduct insurance received 2, 675. 52 



Net loss- 



117. 25 

VII. Case 3290. November 30, 1798, Messrs. Davenport & Tucker, owners of 
certain merchandise composing part of the cargo of the Ruby, thereon procured 
a policy of insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $6,700, pay- 
ing therefor a premium of 18 per cent. Said policy was underwritten by the 
following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, in the sums 
set opposite their names, respectively : 



Joseph Hurd 

Benjamin Cobb. 

John McLean 

John Welles 

Thomas English. 
Eben Preble 



$500 
500 
500 
5D0 
300 
500 



John C. Jones $500 

Samuel Brown 1,000 

Benjamin Bussey 500 

William Bordman 500 

David Greene 500 

John I. Clark 900 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



607 



Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$7,130.14, being a loss to said underwriters of the full amount underwriter by 
each, with an additional loss of 6.42 per cent, as the proportion due froin said 
underwriters on account of expenses incurred in defeuse of said vessel before the 
French prize courts. 

VIII. November 21, 1798, George H. Antbrop was the owner of certain mer- 
chandise composing part of the cargo of the Ruby, and thereupon procured a 
policy of insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $6,000, paying 
therefor a premium of 18. per cent. Said policy was underwritten by the follow- 
ing persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, in the sums set 
opposite their names respectively : „ 



David Greene $1,000 

Caleb Hopkins 2,000 

Stephen Gorham 1, 000 



William Gray, jr $1,000 

Marston Watson ."00 

Joseph Hurd ■ 500 



Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said- assured the sum of 
$6,385.20, being a loss to said underwriters of the full amount underwritten by 
each, with an additional loss of 6.42 per cent as the proportion due from said 
underwriters on account of expenses incurred in defense of said vessel before 
the French prize courts. 

November 20 and December 12, 1798, said George H. Apthorp likewise effected 
insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $10,000, payiug therefor 
a premium of 18 per cent. 

Said policy was underwritten by the following persons in the sums set oppo- 
site their names, respectively. All of said underwriters, whose legal representa- 
tives have appeared in this case, were citizens of the United States. 



Isaac P. Davis $500 

Uriah Cotting 500 

Daniel Sargent— 600 

Charles Sigouruey 400 

Nicholas Gilman 500 

Tuthill Hubbart 500 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 1, 000 



James Scott $1, 000 

Israel Thorndike 500 

Benjamin Cobb 500 

Jeffrey & Russell 1,000 

Francis Green 1, 000 

Thomas Amory 1, 000 

Jacob Sheafe 500 

Edward PI. Bobbins 500 

Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid said assured the sum of 
$10,642, being a loss to said underwriters of the full amount underwritten by 
each, with an additional loss of 6.42 per cent as the proportion due from said 
underwriters on account of expenses incurred in defense of said vessel before 
the French prize courts. 

IX. November 17, 1798, said Moses Wheeler and Luke Keefe, owners of an 
adventure on the Ruby, thereupon procured a policy of insurance in the office 
of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $1,200, paying therefor a premium of 16 per cent. 
Said policy was underwritten by the following persons, both of whom were citi- 
zens of the United States, in the sums set opposite their names, respectively : 

William Stackpole $600 

Thomas Amory '600 

Thereafter said Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,281, 
being a loss to said underwriters of the full amount underwritten by each with 
an additional loss of $81 as the proportion due from said underwriters on 
account of expenses incurred in defense of said vessel before the French prize 
courts. 

X. After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1803, for and in consideration of 
$175.02 and the assumption of all responsibility of Joseph Hurd as insurer in 
the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Hurd assigned to said Brooks all his interest 
in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, February 8, 1802, for and in consideration of $3,000 
and the assumption of all responsibility of John McLean as insurer in the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, Isaiah Knapp, executor of John McLean, assigned to said 
Brooks all the interest of said McLean in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of 
$10,000 and the assumption of all responsibility of Benjamin Bussey-as insure* 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his 
interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, November 15, 1804, for and in consideration oi 
$13,250 and the assumption of all responsibility of William Bordman as insurer 



608 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bordman assigned to said Brooks all of his 
interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 28, 1801, for and in consideration of 
$6,000 and the assumption of all responsibility of David Greene as insurer in 
the office of Peter O. Brooks, said Greene assigned to said Brooks all of his 
interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, March 21, 1804, for and in consideration of $3,000 
and the assumption of all responsibility of John I. Clark as insurer in the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, said Clark assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said 
business. 

After said payinent, to wit, July 23, 1805, for and in consideration of $5,000 
and the assumption of all responsibility of Benjamin Homer as insurer in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Homer assigned to said Brooks all of his interest 
in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of 
$3,715.50 and the assumption of, all responsibility of William Smith as insurer 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all of his 
interest in said business. 

After sai& payment, to wit, October 19, 1804, for and in consideration of 
$3,400 and the assumption of all responsibility of Daniel D. Rogers as insurer in 
the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Rogers assigned to said Brooks all of his 
interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, July 22, 1803, for and in consideration of $1,673.40 
and the assumption of all responsibility of William Clapp as insurer in the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, said Clapp assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said 
business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 8, 1801, Isaac Rands, administrator of 
Caleb Hopkins, a certified copy of whose letters are on file, in consideration of 
$8,000, transferred to Peter C. Brooks all the interest of said Hopkins, with its 
advantages and disadvantages, as an underwriter in said Brooks's office. 

After said payment, to wit, April 4, 1808, for and in consideration of $60,000 
and the assumption of all responsibility of Tuthill Hubbart as insurer in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Hubbart assigned to said Brooks all his interest 
in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of 
$2,986.65 and the assumption of all responsibility of Stephen Gorham as insurer 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Gorham assigned to said Brooks all of his 
interest in said business. 

XL The different underwriters who have appeared in this case by their legal 
representatives, and the losses sustained by each by reason of the amounts paid 
on the several policies, were as follows : 



128. 40 
596. 30 
064. 20 
532. 10 
319. 26 
532. 10 
638. 52 



John C. Jones $1,596.30 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 2,128.40 

Isaac P. Davis 532.10 

James Prince 532. 10 

Israel Thorndike 532. 10 

Th6mas Amory 1, 704. 70 

Nicholas Gilman 532. 10 

Tuthill Hubbart 532. 10 

Charles Sigourney 425. 68 

Uriah Cotting 532.10 

James Scott 1, 064. 20 

William Stackpole 640.50 

Samuel Brown 3,192.60 

Will Powell 1,064.20 

Samuel Dexter 532.10 

XII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and con- 
demnation of the brig Ruby, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

The Boston Marine Insurance Company was duly incorporated under the laws 
of the State of Massachusetts and authorized to carry on the business of marine 
insurance. James G. Freeman was duly appointed receiver of said company. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were 



William Gray 

Marston Watson 

Crowell Hatch 

John Welles 

Thomas English 

Fben Preble 

Daniel Sargent 

Benjamin Cobb— 1, 064. 20 

Jacob Sheafe 532. 10 

Joseph Russell 1,064.20 

Francis Green 1, 064. 20 

Peter C. Brooks 15,856.60 

Boston Marine Insurance 

Company 2, 675. 52 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 609 

uot claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800, that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Arthur P. Gushing, administrator of Marston Watson, one thousand 

five hundred and ninety-six dollars and thirty cents $1, 596. 30 

Frederic Dodge, administrator of Matthew Bridge, nine thousand two ' 
hundred and forty dollars and thirty-four cents 9, 240. 34 

Thomas H. Perkins, surviving executor of Thomas H. Perkins, for 
and on behalf of the firm of James & Thomas H. Perkins, one hun- 
dred and seventeen dollars and twenty-five cents 117. 25 

James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Com- 
pany, two thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars and fifty- 
two cents 2,675.52 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, one thousand and 

sixty-four dollars and twenty cents 1, 064. 20 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, five hundred 
and thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, one thousand 

seven hundred and four dollars and seventy cents 1, 704. 70 

Charles G. Davis, administrator of Isaac P. Davis, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Charles Sigourney, four hun- 
dred and twenty-five dollars and sixty-eight cents 425. 68 

Julia A. Cotting, administrator of Uriah Cotting, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and ten cents__ 532. 10 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, five hundred 
and thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

John Lowell, administrator of Tuthiil Hubbart, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, two thousand 
one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and forty cents 2, 128. 40 

Charles A. Welch, administrator of William Stackpole, six hundred 

and forty dollars and fifty cents 640. 50 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, fifteen thousand 

eight hundred and fifty-six dollars and sixty cents 15, 856. 60 

Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, five hundred and 

thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

James S. English, administrator of Thomas English, three hundred 

and nineteen dollars and twenty-six cents 319. 26 

Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, six hundred 

and thirty-eight dollars and fifty-two cents 638. 52 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Eben Preble, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and ten cents . 532. 10 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand 

five hundred and ninety-six dollars and thirty cents 1, 596. 30 

Charles A. Davis, administrator of Samuel Brown, three thousand 

one hundred and ninety-two dollars and sixty cents 3, 192. 60 

Robert Grant, administrator of Will Powell, one thousand and sixty- 
four dollars and twenty cents 1, 064. 20 

Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, five hundred and 

thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 39 — 



610 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Gordon Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and ten cents $532. 10 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand and 
sixty-four dollars and twenty cents 1, 064. 20 

Chandler Bobbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, for and on be- 
half of the firm of Jeffrey & Russell, one thousand and sixty-four 
dollars and twenty cents 1, 064. 20 

Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and ten cents 532. 10 

Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, two thousand 

one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and forty cents 2, 128. 40 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, one thousand 
and sixty-four dollars and twenty cents 1, 064. 20 

Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, one thousand 

and sixty-four dollars and twenty cents 1,064.20 

Amounting in all to fifty-three thousand nine hundred and sixty-six 
dollars and fifty-seven cents 53, 966. 57 

By the Court. 
Filed January 29, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this Sth day of February, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG JANE. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of Jan. 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, 

Supplement to Rev. Stat., 2d ed., 471. Vessel, brig Jane, Robert Knox, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

815. The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America. 
1591. Crawford D. Hening, administrator of James Crawford, surviving part- 
ner of James Crawford & Co. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 27th day of Janu- 
ary, 1892. 

The claimants were represented by Russell Duane, and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department 
of Justice, Alexander C. Moore, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General 
John B. Cotton. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows: 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations, Nos. 815, 1591. The brig Jane, Knox.] 
GENERAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE VESSEL AND CARGO. 

I. The brig Jane, of Philadelphia, sailed from that port for Antigua on the 
13th of August, 1798. On the 25th of August, in latitude 17° N., while proceed- 
ing on her voyage, the brig was boarded by the French privateer L'Arbone, 
which took out two officers and two of the crew, and proceeded with the prize 
to Point Petre, in Guadaloupe, where the captain of the brig and most of the 
crew were put into prison. On September 29, 1798, the brig was condemned by 
a decree of the tribunal of commerce at Basseterre. The grounds of condemna- 
tion were that the captain was a native of Ireland, and had not proved his 
naturalization ; that the vessel had no role d'equipage ; that the invoices and 
bills of lading were not signed by the proper American authorities, and that the 
cargo was consigned to a native of Antigua and was therefore enemy property. 
No other ground of condemnation was alleged. 



ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 611 

II. The Jane was a duly registered vessel, measuring 132^ tons, built at 
Philadelphia in 1793, and owned by James Crawford and William Rusk, as 
copartners, trading as James Crawford & Co., as appears by the register, June 
1, 1797. Joseph Vansire is named in the register as master, but Robert Knox 
was master at the time of capture, and his name is duly indorsed as such upon 
the original copy of the register taken from the vessel, and now on file at the 
French legation in Washington. 

III. The cargo consisted of 4,430* bushels of Indian corn, belonging to the 
firm of James Crawford & Co., merchants, trading in Philadelphia, and the 
owners likewise of the brig, and consigned to their agent at Antigua for the 
account and risk of the shippers. 

IV. 

The value of the ship was $5,280 

The value of the cargo 2, 021 

The value of the freight 2, 200 

Premiums on insurance paid 1,225 

Amounting in all to 10, 726 

SPECIAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE SEVERAL CASES. 

V. In case No. 1591. The firm of James Crawford & Co. were the owners of 
the entire vessel and cargo. They had procured insurance for themselves to 
the amount of $5,000 upon the vessel and $2,000 upon the cargo. For this latter 
insurance they paid as a premium the sum of $350. They received the sums of 
$4,900 and $1,960, respectively. 

The losses of James Crawford & Co. by reason of the capture of the brig 
Jane and her cargo, for which they became entitled to indemnity, are as follows : 

Value of vessel $5,280 

Value of cargo 2, 021 

Value of freight 2,200 

Premiums paid for insurance 1, 225 

Amounting in all to 10,726 

Less received for insurance 6, 860 

Leaving amount of losses 3, S66 

VI. In case No. 815. The president and directors of the Insurance Company 
of North America were at the time of this capture iu 1798, a corporation duly 
organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and authorized to carry 
on the business of marine insurance. On the 21st of August, 1798, they issued 
to the firm of James Crawford & Co., a policy of $5,000 upon the brig Jane, for 
a voyage to Antigua, and a policy of $2,000 upon the cargo of the said vessel. 
Upon these policies the company subsequently paid to the insured for the cap- 
ture of the said vessel and cargo, the sum of $4,900 and $1,960, respectively, 
and the owners abandoned the vessel and cargo to the insurers as a total loss. 
The losses of the president and directors of the Insurance Company of North 
America by reason of the capture of the Jane and her cargo amounted to $6,860. 

VII. In case No. 1591. The claimant, Crawford Dawes Hening, has produced 
letters of administration for the estate of James Crawford, deceased, surviving 
partner of James Crawford & Co., and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction 
of the court that the person of whose estate he is administrator was the same 
person who was a member of the firm which owned the Jane in 179S, and that 
the said James Crawford and his copartner in the said firm, William Rusk, 
were citizens of the United States. 

VIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole 
or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and 
France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 



612 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- 
tween the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of 
September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- 
ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquish- 
ment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that 
the claimants are entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North 
America, six thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars $6, 860. 00 

Crawford D. Hening, administrator of James Crawford, surviving 
partner of James Crawford & Co., three thousand eight hundred 
and sixty-six dollars 3, 866. 00 

By the Cotjkt. 
Filed November 14, 1892. 

A true copy. 

Test this 10th day of February, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER HULDAH. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. (Act of Jan. 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L, 283.) Ves- 
sel, schooner Huldah, master, John H. Riggs or Robert Strong.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

53. Edmond D. Codman, administrator, etc., of William Gray, jr., v. The 
United States. 
292. Brooks Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 1st day of February, 
1906. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. 
Pickett, and Edward Lander, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the 
Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The schooner Huldah, Robert Strong, master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage from Portland, Mass. (now Me.), in the latter part of the year 1799, 
bound to Berbice, laden with a cargo of timber, meal, onions, tobacco, and soap, 
where she duly arrived. January 15, 1800, the said schooner sailed on a com- 
mercial voyage from New Amsterdam, Berbice, with John H. Riggs as master, 
homeward bound to Portland. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was 
seized on the high seas on or about the 23d day of the said month by the French 
privateer Soliel, commanded by one Francis Lafltte, who took from on board 
the Huldah her master and part of the crew, and placed on board a prize crew 
with orders to conduct her to Guadaloupe. The master of the Huldah was car- 
ried by the privateer to St. Martins, in the island of St. Bartholomew. There- 
after the Huldah and her cargo were condemned as good prize by the tribunal 
of commerce and prizes of Guadaloupe on the ground that the vessel had sailed 
from Berbice. 

II. The Huldah was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 41 tons 
burden, registered at Portland July 3, 1799, but when or where built does not 
appear ; she was owned solely by Jedediah Collins, a citizen of the United 
States, residing in Portland. 

III. The cargo of the Huldah at the time of seizure by the Soleil consisted 
of 8,609 pounds of coffee, and was owned by said Jedediah Collins and Walter 
Simonton, each in the proportion of one-half. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 613 

IV. No one claiming to represent the owners of the vessel or cargo has 
appeared herein, but it appears from evidence that the value of the same was 
equal to at least the amount for which the same was insured. 

V. February 21, 1800, said Jedediah Collins effected insurance on said vessel 
and cargo in the sum of $2,000, being $1,000 on each, by a certain policy under- 
written in Portland by Newhall & Watson in the name of William Gray, jr., 
a citizen of the United States, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent. 

January 27, 1801, the said Newhall & Watson, for the said William Gray, jr.,. 
duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,000 as and for a total loss arising by 
reason of the premises. 

VI. March 8, 1800, said Walter Simonton, a citizen of the United States, resid- 
ing at Portland, effected insurance on the cargo of the Huldah, in the office of 
Peter C. Brooks, a citizen of the United States, in the sum of $1,500, paying 
therefor a premium of 9 per cent, by a policy underwritten as here shown, by 
the following persons, citizens of the United States, viz : 

Nathaniel Fellowes $800 

Stephen Gorham 700 

May 13, 1800, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$1,500 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65, to him paid by said 
Brooks, and the assumption of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising 
from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, the said Stephen Gorham 
assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance 
done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

VII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed 
claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure 
and condemnation of the Huldah, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, were not 
claims growing out of the act of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 
4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800; and said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Edmond D. Codman, administrator, etc., of William Gray, jr., two 
thousand dollars $2, 000 

Brooks Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, seven hundred 

dollars 700 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator, etc., of Nathaniel Fellowes, eight 
hundred dollars . . 800 

Amounting in all to three thousand five hundred dollars 3, 500 

By the Court. 
Filed February 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 15th day of February, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



614 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

BRIG PAMELA. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283.) 
Brig Pamela, Samuel Colby, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2425. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Josiah Cox. 

2426. Henry B. Cleaves, administrator of William Chadwiek. 
Joseph S. Webster, administrator of Thomas Webster. 

1836. Clarence Hale, administrator of Samuel Colby. 

3070. Bassett A. Marsden, administrator of Benjamin Pollard. 

304. Sarah H. Southwick, administratrix of Samuel F. Hussey. 

3120. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Arthur McLellan. 

3124. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Jonathan Stevens and Thomas Hovey, 
composing the firm of Stevens & Hovey. 

70. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray. 

1247. Henry Lee Atherton, heir of Lemuel Weeks. 

1837. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of David Smith. 
2512. Stephen Thacher, administrator of Woodbury Storer. 
2583. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Robert Boyd. 
5497. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Hugh McLellan. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of November, 
1905. The claimants were represented by George A. King, Charles W. Clagett, 
and John St. C. Brookes, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attor- 
ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. The brig Pamela, Samuel Colby, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
or about the 17th day of July, 1799, from Norfolk, Va., for the British island of 
Tobago. She duly arrived at said place, landed her cargo, and took on another 
cargo, and sailed on her return voyage September 22, 1799. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 29th day of 
September, 1799, by the French privateer La Victoire, Captain Marret, and 
conducted to the island of Porto Rico. 

Thereafter said vessel and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of com- 
merce and prizes at Guadeloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the 
owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows • 

1. That her cargo consisted of merchandise, the produce of an English island. 

2. That the papers of the vessel, especially her role d'equipage, were not in 
proper form. 

II. The Pamela was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 163 ff 
tons burden ; was built at Portland, Me., in the year 1796, and was owned by 
Josiah Cox and William Chadwiek, citizens of the United States, in equal 
proportions. 

III. The cargo of the Pamela at the time of capture consisted of rum, molasses, 
and sugar, but the neutrality of same has not been shown. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Pamela, so 
far as is shown by the evidence, were as follows : 

The value of the vessel $6, 548. 64 

The freight earnings 1, 623. 74 

Premium paid by Cox on vessel and freight 600. 00 

Premium paid by Chadwiek on vessel and freight 500. 00 

Total 9, 272. 38 

V. Josiah Cox, half owner of said vessel, insured his interest in the vessel and 
freight for the sum of $3,000 in the office of Ebenezer May at a premium cost to 
him of 20 per cent, or $600. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. ( 615 

Said policy was underwritten by sundry persons, all of whom were citizens of 

the United States. The amounts underwritten and the loss sustained by each 
were as follows: 

Thomas & McLellan, a firm consisting of Elias Thomas and Isaac McLellan_ $400 

Gage & Dean, a firm consisting of Isaac Gage and Ezekiel Dean 200 

Ralph Cross 200 

Joseph McLellan & Son, a firm consisting of Joseph McLellan and Hugh 

McLellan 600 

David Smith 300 

Arthur McLellan 500 

Woodbury Storer i 400 

Weeks & Tucker, a firm consisting of Lemuel Weeks and Tucker 400 



Total 3,000 

Thereafter said underwriters paid to the said Josiah Cox the sum of $3,000 as 
and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

William Chadwick insured his interest in said vessel and freight in the office 
of Ebenezer Mayo in the sum of $2,000 at a premium cost to him of 20 per cent, 
or $400. Said policy was underwritten by sundry persons, citizens of the United 
States. The names of said underwriters and the amounts underwritten, with 
the loss sustained by each, are as follows : 



William Martin 

Robert Boyd 450 

Hussey, Tabor & Co., a firm consisting of Samuel F. Hussey, John Tabor, 

and Isaiah Hacker 600 

Thomas Sanford 200 

Thomas Webster 200 

Noyes & Hale 150 

Stevens & Hovey, a firm consisting of Jonathan Stevens and Thomas 

Hovey 200 



Total : 2,000 

Thereafter said underwriters paid to said William Chadwick the sum of 
$2,000, as and for a total loss thereon. 

All of the above underwriters were citizens of the United States. Hugh 
McLellan was the surviving partner of the firm of Joseph McLellan & Son, and 
Samuel F. Hussey was the surviving partner of Hussey, Tabor & Co. 

VI. Said William Chadwick also obtained from William Gray insurance on the 
vessel and cargo to the amount of $1,000, presumptively $500 on the vessel and 
$500 on the cargo, at a premium cost to him of 20 per cent, amounting to $100 
on said vessel and $100 on said cargo. 

Thereafter said Gray paid to the assured the sum of $1,000, as and for a total 
loss thereon. 

Samuel Colby, master of the vessel, also obtained from said William Gray in- 
surance on an adventure to the amount of $600, at a premium of 20 per cent, 
amounting to $120, on which policy said William Gray paid to said Colby the 
sum of $600, as and for a total loss. 

VII. Benjamin Pollard, a citizen of the United States, made certain advances 
to said vessel while lying in the port of Norfolk, before sailing, to the amount 
of $405.42. 

VIII. The losses of said Josiah Cox by reason of the capture and condemna- 
tion of the Pamela were as follows: 

One-half value of vessel $3,274.32 

One-half freight earnings 811. 87 

Premium paid on vessel and freight earnings- 600. 00 



Total 4, 686. 19 

Less insurance received $3, 000. 00 

Less one-half advances received 202. 71 

3,202.71 



Leaving net loss 1, 483. 48 



616 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

IX. The losses of William Chadwick by reason of said capture and condemna- 
tion were as follows : 

One-half value of vessel $3, 274. 32 

One-half freight earnings l 811. 87 

Premium paid on vessel and freight earnings 500. 00 

Total 4, 586. 19 

Less insurance received on vessel and freight earnings $2, 500. 00 

Less one-half advances received 202. 71 

2, 702. 71 

Leaving net loss 1, 883. 48 

X. The loss of Benjamin Pollard was : 

Advances made to vessel at Norfolk 405. 42 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are 
the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation of the 
Pamela as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of Prance concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of tbe treaty between the United States and France 
on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said 
claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of 
September, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- 
ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquish- 
ment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that 
the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Josiah Cos, one thousand four hun- 
dred and eighty-three dollars and forty-eight cents $1, 483.48 

Henry B. Cleaves, administrator of William Chadwick, one thousand 

eight hundred and eighty-three dollars and forty-eight cents 1, 883. 48 

Bassett A. Marsden, administrator of Benjamin Pollard, four hundred 

and five dollars and forty-two cents 405. 42 

Joseph S. Webster, administrator of Thomas Webster, two hundred 

dollars 200.00 

Sarah H. Southwick, administrator of Samuel F. Hussey, surviving 
partner of the firm of Hussey, Tabor and Compan3% six hundred 
dollars 600.00 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Arthur McLellan, five hundred dol- 
lars 500.00 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Jonathan Stevens and Thomas 
Hovey, composing the firm of Stevens and Hovey, two hundred dol- 
lars 200.00 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of David Smith, three hundred dol- 
lars 300.00 

Stephen Thacher, administrator of Woodbury Storer, four hundred 
dollars 400.00 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Robert Boyd, four hundred and 
fifty dollars 450. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 617 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Hugh McLellan, surviving partner 
of the firm of Joseph McLellan & Son, six hundred dollars $600. 00 

Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, five hundred 

dollars 500.00 

Amounting in all to seven thousand five hundred and twenty- 
two dollars and thirty-eight cents 7, 522. 38 

By the Court. 
Filed December 18, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test. This 24th day of February, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER UNION. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. 

Schooner Union, Micajah Lunt, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1877. Nathaniel Moody, administrator of John Moody, deceased, v. The United 

States. 
2535. Frances E. Andrews, administratrix of Stephen Tilton, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
4330. Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
4330. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., v. The United 

States. 
4330. Amos Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, deceased, v. The United 

States. 
4330. Amos Noyes, administrator of William Cook, v. The United States. 
4330. Joseph A. Titcomb, administrator of John Wells, v. The United States. 
4344. Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, v. The United States. 
4344. Arthur Kimble, administrator of Edmund Kimball, v. The United States. 
4344. Joseph A. Titcomb, administrator of John Wells, v. The United States. 
94. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., v. The United 

States. 
4330. Charles C. Donnell, administrator of Joseph Toppan, v. The United 

States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 1st day of February, 
1906. The claimants were represented by John W. Butterfield, Edward Sander, 
Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and 
the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant 
in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The schooner Union, Micajah Lunt, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on the 3d day of November, 1796, from Newburyport, Mass., bound for Guada- 
loupe. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high 
seas by the French privateer Le Petit Coureur and carried into Guadaloupe. 

On the 18th day of December, 1797, the Union and her cargo were condemned 
by the French prize tribunal sitting at Basse Terre in said island, whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation were that she made a false route in order to go 
to Martinique. 

II. The Union was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 89ff tone 
burthen; was built at Brunswick, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned by 
Stephen Tilton and John Moody, both of whom were citizens of the United 
States, in equal proportions. 



618 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The cargo of the Union at the time of capture consisted of salt provisions 
and pickled fish, and was owned by the said Stephen Tilton and John Moody, 
in equal proportions. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Union and 
her cargo were as follows: 

The value of the vessel " $3, 596. 00 

The freight earnings 252. 00 

The value of the cargo 1, 350. 00 

Premium of insurance paid 488. 50 

Total : 5, 686. 50 

V. On the 25th of November, 1797, John Moody and Stephen Tilton effected 
insurance on the vessel and cargo in the sum of $1,950, at a premium cost to 
them of $488.50, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, citi- 
zens of the United States, in the amounts set opposite their names : 

William Gray, jr $1, 000. 00 

Zebedee Cook : 250.00 

John Pearson, jr 200. 00 

William Cook 100. 00 

Joseph Toppan __! 200. 00 

John Wells 200. 00 

Thereafter, on the 23d of June, 1798, John Pearson, as agent for the above 
underwriters, paid to the assured the sum of $1,950, as and for a total loss by 
reason of the premises. 

VI. The losses of said Stephen Tilton were as follows : 

One-half value of vessel $1, 798. 00 

One-half freight earnings 126. 00 

One-half value of cargo 675. 00 

One-half premium of insurance paid 244. 25 

Total 2, 843. 25 

Less insurance received 975. 00 

Leaving net loss of , 1, 868. 25 

VII. Micajah Lunt, the master of the Union, insured a certain adventure on 
board of said vessel, but what the adventure consisted of or whether the same 
was neutral property does not appear. 

VIII. The losses of said John Moody were as follows: 

One-half value of vessel $1,798.00 

One-half freight earnings 126. 00 

One half value of cargo 675. 00 

One-half premium of insurance paid 244. 25 

Total 2, 843. 25 

Less insurance received 975. 00 

Leaving net loss of 1, 868. 25 

IX. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims 
are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemna- 
tion of the Union as set forth in the preceding findings. 

X. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803 ; they were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of 
the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 619 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and that the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity 
therefor upon the French Republic prior to the ratification of the convention 
between the United States and France concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by said treaty by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States in part consideration of the relinquishment of 
certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- 
ants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: 

Nathaniel Moody, administrator of John Moody, one thousand eight 

hundred and sixty-eight dollars and twentyrfive cents $1, S68. 25 

Frances E. Andrews, administratrix of Stephen Tilton, one thousand 

eight hundred and sixty-eight dollars and twenty-five cents 1, 868. 25 

Amos Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, two hundred and fifty 

dollars 250. 00 

Amos Noyes, administrator of William Cook, one hundred dollars 100. 00 

Joseph A. Titcomb, administrator of John Wells, two hundred dollars- 200. 00 
Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, jr., two hundred 

dollars 200.00 

Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., one thousand 

dollars 1, 000. 00 

Charles C. Donnell, administrator of Joseph Toppan, two hundred 

dollars 200. 00 

Amounting in all to five thousand six hundred and eighty-six 

dollars and fifty cents 5, 686. 50 

The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 
Filed February 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SHIP BRISTOL. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Ship Bristol, Edward Smith, master.] 

No. of 

case. Claimant. 

5314. Caroline A. Woodard and Frank Woodard, administrators of Thomas 
Smith. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 8th day of February, 
1906. 

The claimants were represented by George A. King, and the United States, 
defendant, by the Attorney-General through his assistant in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. 
Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Bristol, Edward Smith, master, sailed on a commercial voyage in 
the month of March, 1797, from New York for the Danish Island of Santa Cruz, 
West Indies. Arriving at said port her cargo was sold and a new cargo taken 
on, and a voyage to London made. There the second cargo was sold and a 
voyage to Lisbon, Portugal, undertaken in December, 1797. On this voyage the 
vessel bad no cargo on board but was sailing in ballast. While peacefully 



620 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer 
U Heureux Spgculateur (The Happy Speculator), commissioned by the French 
Republic, and conducted into the port of Morlaix, Department of Finisterre, 
in France. The tribunal of commerce of that place, on the 18th of January, 
1798, decreed her condemnation on the following grounds : 

1. That the vessel had no role d'equipage. 

2. That the captain, on being interrogated, acknowledged that he had, after 
the capture of the ship, burned some letters and papers which he alleged as 
seeming to him to be indifferent. 

3. That the English Government had not accorded reciprocity in the matter 
of the navigation of neutral vessels. 

The disclosure that there were any letters burned seems to have come volun- 
tarily from the declaration of Captain Smith, on his examination. The papers 
of the vessel were otherwise regular and in good form, consisting of the register 
of the vessel, passport signed by the President and Secretary of State of the 
United States, customs clearance from London for a Portuguese port, and a 
letter from a firm of London merchants to their correspondent in Portugal, 
together with thirteen other papers which the interpreter deemed it useless to 
translate, and the contents of which are not stated in the decree. 

II. The Bristol was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 263ff 
tons burthen and belonged solely to Thomas Smith, a .citizen of the United 
States. 

III. The claimants herein have. produced letters of administration upon the 
estate of the party for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the person for whose estate they have filed a 
claim is the same person who suffered loss by reason of the capture and con- 
demnation of the Bristol as set forth in the preceding findings. 

IV. The losses of Thomas Smith by reason of the capture and condemnation 
of the Bristol were as follows : 

Vessel $6, 590 

V. Said claim, was not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. It was 
not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claim, 
which has never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
French Republic and the United States concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of 
certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- 
ants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Caroline A. Woodard and Frank "Woodard, administrators of Thomas 

Smith, six thousand five hundred and ninety dollars $6, 590 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 17th day of March, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 621 

SHIP LIBERTY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Ship Liberty, William Caldwell, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1144. Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator de bonis non of the estate of 
James Crawford, deceased, v. The United States. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of Febru- 
ary, 1906. The claimants were represented by Aldis B. Browne, Alexander 
Britton, R. Soper Baird, and Joseph Hopkinson, esqs., and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department 
of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General 
Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Liberty, William Caldwell, master, sailed on a commercial voyage, 
on or about May 10, 1794, from Philadelphia, Pa., bound for Bombay, India. 
Early in the month of November, 1794, the Liberty arrived off the port of La 
Montague, Isle of France. Upon the arrival of the vessel, its cargo was put 
under requisition by the French authorities, acting under the decrees of the 
committee of public safety of the island and of the colonial assembly. 

On November 5, 1794, the master of the Liberty addressed a communication to 
the committee of public safety rejecting the terms and prices offered by the said 
committee for the cargo and setting forth* prices and conditions which would be 
agreeable to him. 

Thereafter the French authorities, in the presence of Captain Caldwell, dis- 
charged that part of the cargo taken in requisition, said Caldwell remonstrating 
at times against the same, stating as his reason that he was in ignorance of the 
prices and kind of money he would be paid. 

A portion of said cargo was used in provisioning French war vessels and the 
remainder taken by the municipal authorities, but it appears that the master of 
the Liberty was thereafter paid by French authorities for the cargo taken in 
requisition and which was accepted by him, and that the prices were reasonable 
and just. 

By reason of the seizure of the Liberty by the French the owners suffered a 
detention of three months. 

II. The Liberty was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 269 tons 
burthen, and was owned by James Crawford, a resident of the United States, 
and a merchant of Philadelphia. 

III. The cargo of the Liberty consisted of brandy, wine, oil, fruit, lavender, 
umbrellas, snuff, nails, hats, threads, cloth, soap, iron, pork, and other merchan- 
dise, and was the sole property of said James Crawford, the owner of the vessel. 

IV. The loss to said James Crawford by reason of the seizure and detention of 
the Liberty was as follows : 

Freight earnings $4, 490 

Detention of vessel for three months 4, 500 

Total 8, 990 

V. The claimant has produced letters of administration upon the estate of 
James Crawford, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
said James Crawford is the same person who suffered loss by reason of the de- 
tention of the Liberty, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

VI. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1S31. 

The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which 
has never been assigned. * 



622 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said detention of the Liberty 
was illegal and that the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon 
the -French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Septem- 
ber, 1800 ; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- 
tain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant 
is entitled to the following sum from the United States : 

Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator of James Crawford, eight 
thousand nine hundred and ninety dollars $8, 990 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG ELEANOR, GEORGE PRICE, MASTER. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. 

Brig Eleanor, George Price, master.] 
No of 
case. Claimant. 

830. The Insurance Company of North America v. The United States. 
3143. David Stewart, administrator of Francis Johonnet v. The United States. 
J. Savage Williams, administrator of Samuel Williams, v. The United 

States. 
Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1906. The claimants were represented by J. Bayard Henry, Wm. T. S. 
Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Frank P. Clark, and the United States, defend- 
ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General 
J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. 

The brig Eleanor, whereof George Price was then master, sailed on a com- 
mercial voyage in the month of November, 1797, from Baltimore bound to Point 
a Pitre, Guadaloupe, where she duly arrived and disposed of a portion of her 
cargo, and with the proceeds purchased cotton and coffee, took the same on 
board and sailed February 9, 1798, for St. Thomas. The same day the Eleanor 
was seized by the British privateer Thomas, commanded by William A. Perry, 
and carried to the port of Dominico, where she was released, and on the 15th 
of the said month again sailed for the place of her destination. While peace- 
fully pursuing her said voyage she was seized on the 17th of the said month 
by the French privateer La Belle Poule, under the command of Cadet Roman, 
who took out the master and supercargo of the Eleanor and detained them on 
board the privateer. A prize master and crew of 12 men were then placed on 
the Eleanor, with orders to carry her to Guadaloupe. The privateer remained 
in company with her prize for twenty-four hours, when they became separated. 
The privateer duly arrived at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, with the said George 
Price and Nicholas G. Ridgely, master and supercargo of the Eleanor. The 
prize crew not being able to make Guadaloupe with the Eleanor, attempted to 
go to St. Eustatius, which also failed them, and then bore away for St. Croix. 
On the 23d of the said month of February the Eleanor was retaken by the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 623 

British tender Re becca, Capt. Daniel Ross, belonging to H. B. M. sloop of war 
Scourge, commanded by Samuel Warren, and carried to Tortola. While in 
the possession of the French prize crew, packages of merchandise composing 
part of the cargo of the Eleanor were opened and the goods scattered about the 
hold of the vessel by the French captors. 

March 19, 1798, at a court of vice-admiralty held in the Road Town of the 
island of Tortola, the Eleanor and her cargo were condemned to pay a salvage 
of one-eighth of the gross value thereof, together with all costs and charges 
and the vessel and cargo were sold to ascertain the same. 

II. 

The Eleanor was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 143^V tons 
burthen, built in the State of Connecticut in the year 1792, and was owned 
solely by Francis Johonnet, Richard Lawson (Francis Johonnet & Co.), Benja- 
min Williams, and Samuel Williams, citizens of the United States residing in 
Baltimore, Md. 

III. 

The outward cargo of the Eleanor consisted of flour, pork, dry goods, and 
sundries. The cargo on board at the date of the seizure by the French con- 
sisted of that portion of the outward cargo not sold in Guadaloupe, together 
with 879 bags of coffee and 8S bales of cotton shipped at Point Petre, Guada- 
loupe. The cargo was the property of the owners of the vessel, together with 
William Slater, a citizen of the United States residing in Baltimore. 

IV. 

The losses to the owners by reason of the seizure of the Eleanor by the 
French were as follows : 

Salvage paid $3, 669.23 

Deduct insurance received 2, 852. 05 

Net loss 817. 18 

Loss to Francis Johonnet & Co 267.21 

Loss to Samuel Williams 204.31 

Loss to Benjamin Williams 204. 31 

V. 

March 16, 1798, the said Francis Johonnet & Co., acting for all said owners, 
effected insurance on said vessel in the office of the Insurance Company of 
North America in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent. 

March 16, 1798, the said Francis Johonnet & Co., acting for all of said owners, 
effected insurance on said cargo in the office of the Insurance Company of North 
America in the sum of $12,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent. 

Thereafter, to wit, March 19, 1799, the said insurance company paid the said 
assured the sum of $2,000, and on August 13, 1799, made a further payment 
of $852.25, in all, $2,852.25 as and for a general average loss by reason of the 
premises. 

VI. 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America is a 
corporation duly incorporated April 14, 1794, under the laws of the State of 
Pennsylvania, and authorized among other things to carry on the business of 
marine insurance, which business the company still conducts. 

The firm of Francis Johonnet & Co. was composed solely of Francis Johonnet 
and Richard Lawson, the partners having an equal interest in the firm business. 

VII. 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- 
tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the 
same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the Eleanor, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. ; 



624 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VIII. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They 
were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, 
concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or 
in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure by the French was 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon 
the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th of September. 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the 
United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- 
tain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- 
ants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North 
America, two thousand eight hundred and fifty-two dollars and 
twenty-five cents : $2, 852. 25 

David Stewart, administrator of Francis Johonnet, one hundred and 

thirty-three dollars and sixty cents 133. 60 

James Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, one hundred and 
thirty-three dollars and sixty cents . 133. 60 

J. Savage Williams, administrator of Samuel Williams, two hundred 

and four dollars and thirty-one cents 204. 31 

Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, two hun- 
dred and four dollars and thirty-one cents 204. 31 

Amounting in all to three thousand five hundred and twenty- 
eight dollars and seven cents : 3, 528. 07 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER BROTHERS, JAMES VINSON, MASTER. 

[Court of claims. French Spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283.) 
Vessel, schooner Brothers; master, James Vinson.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1 768. Gustavus W. Ridgely, administrator of George P. Keeports, v. The United 

States. 
Mary Jane Thurston, administratrix of John Hollins, v. The United 

States. 
. Edward C. Noyes and David Stewart, administrators of James Clarke, 

v. The United States. 
Cumberland Dugan, administrator of Cumberland Dugan, v. The United 

States. 
David Stewart, administrator of William Wood, jr., v. The United States. 
Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, v. The 

United States. 
J. Savage Williams, administrator of Samuel Williams, v. The United 

States. 
James Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, v. The United States. 
3145. David Stewart, administrator of James Jaffray, v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 625 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of Febru- 
ary, 1906. The claimants were represented by Frank P. Clark, William T. S. 
Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the 
Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as 
follows : 

I. 

The schooner Brothers, James Vinson, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on or about the 2d day of October, 1797, from Baltimore bound to Surinam. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas, on or 
about the 29th day of the said month, by the French privateer Bout au Corps, 
and Gonducted to Guadaloupe, where both vessel and cargo were condemned 
as good prize by the tribunal of prizes setting at Basseterre, whereby the same 
became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The ground of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was that the vessel 
had changed ■her destination in order to go to Martinique. 

II. 

The Brothers was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 99 56/95 
tons burthen, built in Somerset County, Md., in the year 1793, and owned solely 
by James Jaffray, a citizen of the United States residing in Baltimore. 

III. 

The cargo of the Brothers consisted of rice, flour, tobacco, corn, bread, and 
peas, owned solely by the said James Jaffray. 

IV. 

The losses to the said James Jaffray by reason of the seizure and condemna- 
tion of the Brothers was as follows, viz : 

Value of the vessel $3,485.00 

Freight earnings 1, 500. 00 

Value of the cargo 4, 923. 00 

Premium of insurance paid 500. 00 

Amounting in all to 10, 408. 00 

Deduct insurace received 3,920.00 

Net loss 6, 488. 00 

V. 

October 4, 1797, the said James Jaffray effected insurance on said cargo in 
the office of George P. Keeports, in Baltimore, in the sum of $4,000, paying 
therefore a premium of 12£ per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following 
persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, as here shown, viz : 

John Hollins $500 

James Clark 500 

Cumberland Dugan 500 

William Wood, jr 750 

John McFadon & Co 750 

Benjamin Williams 500 

Samuel Williams , 500 

January 24, 1798, the said assured was duly paid the sum of $3,920 as and for 
a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the cus- 
tomary abatement in the Keeport office of 2 per cent. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 10 



626 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

VI. 

The firm of John McFadon & Co. was composed solely of John McFadon and 
Richard Lawson, each partner having a one-half interest in the firm business. 

April 10, 1839, John McFadon, being largely indebted to the United States, as- 
signed to the same all his right, title, and interest in any and all claims grow- 
ing out of spoliations by the French prior to 1800. 

VII. 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satis- 
faction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims 
are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and 
condemnation of the schooner Brothers, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 
4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention 
between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 3Qth day 
of September, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the re- 
linquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; 
and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United 
States : 

David Stewart, administrator of James Jaffray, six thousand four 
hundred and eighty-eight dollars $6, 488. 00 

Mary Jane Thurston, administratrix of John Hollins, four hundred 
and ninety dollars 490.00 

Edward C. Noyes and David Stewart, administrators of James 
Clarke, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Cumberland Dugan, administrator of Cumberland Dugan, four hun- 
dred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

David Stewart, administrator of William Wood, jr., seven hundred 

and thirty-five dollars 735. 00 

Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, four hun- 
dred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

J. Savage Williams, administrator of Samuel Williams, four hundred 

and ninety dollars 490. 00 

James Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, three hundred and 

sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents 367. 50 

Amounting in all to ten thousand and forty dollars and fifty 

cents : 10, 040. 50 

By the Court. 
Filed February 19, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 627 

SHIP AURORA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 
1. Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel ship Aurora, master, Stephen Butman.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

364. Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United 
States. 
Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United 

States. 
Henry Parkman, administrator of John Duballet, v. The United States. 
1618. John M. Clinch, administrator of Perez Morton, v. The United States. 
2242. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
3315. Wm. I. Monroe, et al., administrators of John Brazer, et al., v. The 
United States. 

3441. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United 

States. 
David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United States. 
William S. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United 

States. 
John W. Apthorp, administrator of Caleb Hopkins, v. The United States. 
Henry Parkman, administrator of John Duballet, v. The United States. 
Edward I. Browne, administrator of Moses Brown, v. The United States. 

3442. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United 

States. 
Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 
John W. Apthorp, administrator of Caleb Hopkins, v. The United States. 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United 

States. 
Daniel D. Slade, administrator of D. D. Rogers, v. The United States. 
Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, v. The United States. 
Walter Hunnewell, administrator of Arnold Welles, jr., v. The United 

States. 
William S. Carter, administrator of William Smith, v. The United States. 
Lawrence Bond, administrator of Nathan Bond, v. The United States. 
William I. Monroe, administrator of John Brazer, v. The United States. 
A. H. Loring, administrator of William Boardman, v. The United States. 
4167. Horace B. Sargent, administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINAKY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of Novem- 
ber, 1904. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. 
Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through 
his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Aurora, Stephen Butman, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on or about October 15, 1797, bound from Boston to Kingston, Jamaica, laden 
with a cargo of lumber, and while peacefully pursuing her voyage she was seized 
on the high seas, on or about the 7th day of November, 1797, by the French 
privateer Pandour, Captain Gariscan, who took from out of said ship both mates 
and all her crew except the master, supercargo and steward, cook, and carpen- 
ter, and placed on board a prize crew of two officers and thirteen or fourteen 
men belonging to the privateer ; that on the 11th day of said month, there being 
three British line of battle ships in sight, the French prize crew, in order to 
escape from capture, ran said Aurora on a shoal called the Seven Brothers, off 
Hispaniola, and a number of the prize crew escaped to the shore; that in the 
evening of the same day two boats from His Britannic Majesty's ship Valiant, 
commanded by one John Crawley, boarded said ship Aurora and took every per- 
son out of her and carried them on board the Valiant; that on the next day 



628 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Captain Crawley sent three boats with the first and third lieutenants and about 
30 men, who made every effort to get said ship Aurora off, but there being 9 
feet of water in the hold, their efforts proved ineffectual, and she was then set 
on fire and consumed by the order of Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, of the British 
fleet, and became a total loss to the owners. 

II. The Aurora was an American vessel belonging to Boston, and was owned 
by Willard Gay, of Dedham, Mass., in the proportion of one-third ; and by David 
Greene, of Boston, in the proportion of two-thirds, both of whom were citizens 
of the United States. Said vessel measured 332 SO/95 tons, and carried a cer- 
tificate of ownership showing her to be an American bottom. 

III. The cargo of the Aurora at the time of capture consisted of lumber and 
staves and was owned by the said Gay and Greene, the owners of the vessel. 

IV. The value of the vessel and cargo at the time of seizure by the French 
exceeded the amount of insurance thereon, as hereinafter set forth. 

V. Willard Gay, one of the owners of said ship and cargo, caused insurance 
to be effected thereon October 7, 1797, in the office of Peter C. Brooks, in the 
sum of $4,000, at a premium cost of 30 per cent, said policy being underwritten 
by sundry persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States. 

Thereafter, on or about September 8, 1798, said Brooks, as agent, paid to the 
assured the sum of $4,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The underwriters who have appeared in this case and the amount paid by 
each on said policy are as follows : 

Crowell Hatch $600 

John Brazer 900 

David Greene 600 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 400 

John Duballet 500 

Benjamin Bussey 500 

Tuthill Hubbart 500 

VI. On or about the 18th day of October, 1797, one Robert Davis, as agent 
for said David Greene, the owner of a portion of said vessel and cargo, caused 
to be effected in Boston a policy of insurance on his said interest in the office 
of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $5,000, whereof $3,000 was on the vessel and 
$2,000 on the cargo, at a premium cost of 30 per cent, said policy being under- 
written by sundry persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States. 

Thereafter, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, paid to the assured the sum of 
$4,005 on said policy. 

The underwriters on said policy and the amounts paid by each on same 
were as follows. 

Arnold Welles, jr $300 

Daniel Sargent 500 

Caleb Hopkins 500 

Nathanel Fellowes 500 

Daniel D. Rogers 500 

John Welles 300 

William Smith 500 

John Brazer 400 

William Boardman 105 

Nathan Bond 400 

VII. The said part owner, David Greene, also caused further insurance to be 
effected on his interests in said vessel and cargo, December 6, 1797, in the sum 
of $3,200 in the office of Joseph Taylor at a premium cost of 25 per cent. Said 
policy was underwritten by sundry persons, citizens of the United States, who 
afterwards, through said Taylor, paid the assured the several amounts under- 
written by them. 

The underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case and the 
amounts paid by them on same were as follows : 

Nicholas Gilman $1, 000 

Caleb Hopkins 1, 000 

John Duballet 500 

Moses Brown 400 

X. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, September 4, 1904, for and in 
consideration of $5,780.85 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption 
by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his 
underwritten in the office of said Brooks, the said John Brazer assigned to the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 629 

said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by 
him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 20, 1801, for and in 
consideration of $6,000 and the assumption of all and any liabilities, said 
David Green made a similar assignment as an underwriter to the said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in 
consideration of 810,000 and the assumption of all and any liabilities, said 
Benjamin Bussey made a similar assignment to the said Brooks. 

After the payment of said insurance, to wit, April 4, 1808, for and in consid- 
eration of $60,000 and the assumption of all and any liabilities of said Tuthill 
Hubbart as the underwriter, the administrators of the estate of said Hubbart 
made a similar assignment to said Brooks. 

XI. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the various es- 
tates represented by them, and have proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons whose estates they represent are the same persons who suffered loss 
through the capture of the Aurora. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were 
not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain 
concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of 
the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claim, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of 
the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of 
certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- 
ants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thou- 
sand five hundred dollars $2, 500. 00 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, four hundred 
dollars 400. 00 

Henry Parkman, administrator of John Duballet, one thousand dol- 
lars 1, 000. 00. 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, six hundred dollars. 600. 00 

William S. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, one thousand 

dollars 1, 000. 00 

John W. Apthorp, administrator of Caleb Hopkins, one thousand five 
hundred dollars _ 1, 500. 00 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Moses Brown, four hundred dol- 
lars 400.00 

Walter Hunnewell, administrator of Arnold Welles, jr., three hundred 

dollars 300.00 

Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, five hundred dol- 
lars 500.00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, five hun- 
dred dollars 500. 00 

Daniel D. Slade, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, five hundred 

dollars 500.00 

Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, three hundred 

dollars _._j : 300.00 

William S. Carter, administrator of William Smith, five hundred 

dollars _: 500.00 

William I. Monroe, administrator of John Brazer, four hundred dol- 
lars 400.00 

A. H. Loring, administrator of William Boardman, one hundred and 
five dollars 105. 00 

Lawrence Bond, administrator of Nathan Bond, four hundred dollars- 400. 00 

Amounting in all to 10, 905. 00 



630 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

No one appeared in this case for Willard Gay, one of the owners of the vessel 
and cargo. 

The claim of David Greene was not filed within the statutory period prescribed 
by the act of January 20, 1885. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 3, 1905. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of January, 1905. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP FLORA, FRANCIS BOURN, MASTER. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283.) 
Vessel, sloop Flora; master, Francis Bourn.] 

No. of 

case. Claimant. 

2531. The Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, trustee for the Washington 
Insurance Company of the State of Rhode Island, v. The United States. 

2821. George F. Chace, administrator, etc., of Stephen Chace, v. The United 
States. 
George F. Chace, administrator, etc., of James Chace, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 1st day of Feb- 
ruary, 1906. The claimants were represented by Wm. T. S. Curtis, Theodore 
J. Pickett, and Edward Lander, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by 
the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John 
W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be 
as follows: 



The sloop Flora, Francis Bourn, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
or about the 16th day of March, 1S00, from Providence, R. I., bound for St. 
Thomas. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high 
seas on or about the 6th day of April, 1800, by the French privateer UEgypte 
Conquise, the commander of which removed from on board the Flora her master 
and three of his men, afterwards placing them on board an English schooner 
captured the day after the seizure of the Flora, and to which permission was 
given to depart for what port they wished. Thereafter both vessel and cargo 
were condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting 
at Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total 
loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows : 

Want of a role d'equipage in due form. 

That the neutral ownership of the cargo did not sufficiently appear by any 
instrument properly authenticated. 

II. 

The Flora was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 63 ff tons 
burthen, built at Somerset, Mass., in the year 1799, and at the time of sailing 
was owned solely by Thomas Jones, James Chace, and Francis Bourn, all of 
whom were citizens of the United States. April 7, 1800, or one day after her 
seizure by the French, the said Chace sold his interest in said vessel to said 
Thomas Jones. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 631 

III. 

The cargo of the Flora consisted of lard, butter, beef, fish, and similar pro- 
visions, and was owned solely by the said Thomas Jones, James Chace, and 
Francis Bourn, owners of the vessel at the time of seizure as aforesaid, and 
Jacob Whitman, jr., likewise a citizen of the United States, in the proportion of 
one-fourth each. 

IV. 

March 15, 1800, the said Thomas Jones, Jacob Whitman, jr., James Chace, 
and Francis Bourn insured said vessel and cargo with the Washington Insur- 
ance Company in the sum of $6,500, paying therefor a premium of 13 per cent. 
Of this insurance $3,400 was on the vessel, and $3,100 on the cargo. Of the 
entire sum insured $2,000 was for Thomas Jones, $2,000 for Jacob Whitman, jr., 
$1,250 for James Chace, and $1,250 for Francis Bourn. 

Thereafter the following payments to the assured were made by the said 
company by reason of the premiums, viz : 

September 9, 1800, to Jacob Whitman, jr., $912. 

September 11, 1800, to Thomas Jones, on account of loss to Jacob Whit- 
man, jr., $807.23. 

July 30, 1800, to Thomas Jones, on account of loss of James Chace, $1,067.86. 

August 21, 1800, to Thomas Jones on account of loss to himself and Francis 
Bourn, $2,793.75. 

V. 

As it appears from the evidence that the said vessel was bought in at the 
condemnation sale, at a price not shown, by her former owners, no allowance 
is made to them or the insurance company on account thereof. 

VI. 

Jacob Whitman, jr., was insured in the sum of $2,000. He is shown by the 
evidence to have had only an interest of $1,036.56 in the cargo, which, with the 
premium paid by him thereon, made his interest amount to the sum of $1,171.31. 
The company paid him the sum of $1,719.23. He was therefore overpaid in 
the sum of $537.92. 

VII. 

James Chace was insured in the sum of $1,250. He owned one- third of the 
vessel and one-fourth of the cargo. His assignee on the policy was paid by 
the insurance company the sum of $1,067.86. Of this sum he was paid $558.59 
on account of loss on the vessel and $509.27 on account of the cargo. 

April 7, 1800, said James Chace, being indebted to said Thomas Jones in 
the sum of $1,500, assigned to him, the said Jones, all the right, title, and inter- 
est of him, the said Chace, in the policy of insurance issued on the Flora and 
cargo by the Washington Insurance Company. 

VIII. 

Thomas Jones and Francis Bourn was insured in the sum of $3,250. They 
owned two-thirds of the vessel and one-half of the cargo. They were paid by 
the insurance company the sum of $2,793.75. Of this sum they were paid 
$1,461.41 on account of loss on the vessel and $1,332.34 on account of the cargo. 

IX. 

The loss to the Washington Insurance Company was as follows : 

Amount paid on policy on cargo — 

To Jacob Whitman, jr $1, 719. 23 

To Thomas Jones, assignee of James Chace 509. 27 

To Thomas Jones, his own account and on account of Francis 

Bourn 1, 332. 34 

Amounting in all 3, 560. 84 

Deduct overpayment to Jacob Whitman, jr 537. 92 

Net loss to company .___ 3, 032. 92 



632 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

X. 

The loss to James Chace was as follows : 

Value of portion of cargo owned by him $1, 036. 56 

Premium of insurance paid thereon 134. 75 

Amounting in all to 1, 171. 31 

Deduct insurance paid on cargo to Thomas Jones, assignee of policy 509. 27 

Net loss to James Chace 662. 04 

• No claim has been filed herein on behalf of Jacob Whitman, jr., Thomas 
Jones, or Francis Bourn. 

Stephen Chace has proved no interest in either vessel or cargo. 

XI. 

In March, 1820, the Providence Insurance Company was incorporated with the 
Washington Insurance Company, and the name became thereafter the Provi- 
dence-Washington Insurance Company. 

Upon the increase of capital stock of the Providence-Washington Insurance 
Company, and for the purpose of securing to the then stockholders thereof and 
their legal representatives all sums of money which might thereafter be col- 
lected from the United States on account of " French Spoliation claims," the 
Providence-Washington Insurance Company, on the 1st day of May, 1875, as- 
signed all their French spoliation claims, including the claim which is the sub- 
ject of this report, to the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company in trust for 
the benefit of such stockholders and their legal representatives. 

XII. 

The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the person for whom he appears, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction 
of the court that the persons for whose estate they have filed claims are the 
same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of 
the Flora, as set forth in the preceding findings. The insurance companies have 
produced to the court their certificates of incorporation. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1S03. They were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole or in part 
under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- 
cluded on the 22d day of February, 1S19, and were not allowed in whole or in 
part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France 
of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- 
for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention 
between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day 
of September, 1S00 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the 
relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, 
and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United 
States : 

The Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, trustee for the Provi- 
dence-Washington Insurance Company, three thousand and thirty- 
two dollars and ninety-two cents $3, 032. 92 

George F. Chace, administrator of James Chace, six hundred and 

sixty-two dollars and four cents 662. 04 

Amounting in all to three thousand six hundred and ninety- 
four dollars and ninety-six cents 3,694.96 

By the Court. 
Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 24th day of March, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 633 

SHIP WASHINGTON. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283.) 
Ship Washington, Aaron Foster, master.] 

No. of 

case. Claimant. 

2002. Herman Stump, administrator of James Biays, v. The United States. 
Robert Gilmor, administrator of Robert Gilmor, v. The United States. 
Robert Gilmor, administrator of William Bingham, v. The United States. 
Cumberland D. Hollins, administrator of John Hollins, v. The United 
States. 
2123. Thomas J. Wilson, administrator of William Wilson, v. The United 
States. 
Cumberland D. Hollins. administrator of William Hollins, v. The United 
States. 
1106. Joseph Ogden, executor of Jane Anne Ferrers, v. The United States. 

Susan Ludlow Warren, administratrix of Daniel Ludlow, v. The United 

States. 
Bayard Tuckerman, administrator of Walter Channing, v. The United 

States. 
George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba, v. The United States. 
4142. Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, v. The United States. 
4542. Lucy Franklin Read McDonnell, executrix, etc., of George Pollock, v. 

The United States. 
■1548. Lucy Franklin Read McDonnell, executrix, etc., of George Pollock, v. 

The United States. 
52S4, John L. Rutgers, surviving executor, etc., of Nicholas G. Rutgers, v. The 

United States. 
2556. Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, v. The United States. 

PRKLIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the Stb day of January. 
1903. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. 
Pickett, and John C. Clark, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the 
Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice. John M. 
Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- 
ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be 
as follows : 

I. The ship Washington, Aaron Foster, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on or about January 5, 1799, from Liverpool, England, bound to Baltimore. Md. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or 
about January 16, 1799. by the French privateer Vantour, Captain Le Maitre. 
and conducted into St. Martin (isle de Re), where both vessel and cargo were 
condemned by the French prize tribunal at St. Martin and became a total loss 
to the owners thereof. 

The grounds for said condemnation, as set forth in the decree, are as follows : 
That she was not provided with a role d'equipage. 

That her cargo had been shipped at Liverpool and was composed of goods of 
English manufacture. 

II. The Washington was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 
301 ff tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1795, and was owned by 
the following parties, citizens of the United States: John Hollins and James 
Biays each one-third and Robert Gilmor and William Bingham each one-sixth. 

III. The cargo consisted of coal, salt, paint lead, window glass, • pictures, 
earthenware, and porter, and belonged to sundry persons among whom were 
John Hollins, William Hollins, and the firm of Wilson <fc Maris, citizens of the 
United States. 



634 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Washington, 
so far as claims have been filed in tbis court, were as follows : 

Value of the vessel $13,568.68 

Freight earnings 6, 633. 58 

Value of cargo owned by John Hollins 6, 892. 86 

Value of cargo owned by William Hollins 1,839.70 

Value of cargo owned by Wilson & Maris 2,135.48 

Premium of insurance paid on vessel and freight 1, 500. 00 

Amounting in all to 32, 550. 30 

V. The loss to James Biays was as follows : 

One-third of loss on vessel $4, 522. 89 

One-third loss on freight 2, 211. 19 

Premium of insurance, one-half of $1,500 750. 00 

7, 484. 08 

Less one-half of insurance paid 4, 900. 00 



Amounting to 2, 584. 08 

VI. The loss to John Hollins was as follows : 

One-third loss on vessel $4, 522. 89 

One-third loss on freight 2,211.19 

Premium of insurance, one-half of $1,500 750. 00 

Cargo owned by John Hollins 6, 892. 86 

14, 376. 94 
Less one-half of insurance paid 4, 900. 00 

Amounting to 9, 476. 94 

VII. The loss to Robert Gilmor was as follows: 

One-sixth loss on vessel $2, 261. 44 

One-sixth loss on freight 1, 105. 60 

Amounting to : 1 3, 367. 04 

VIII. The loss to William Bingham was as follows : 

One-sixth loss on vessel $2, 261. 44 

One-sixth loss on freight 1, 105. 60 

Amounting in all to 3, 367. 04 

IX. The loss to Wilson & Maris was as follows: 

Value of 119 crates of crockery $2, 115. 49 

X. The loss to William Hollins was as follows: 

Salt and coal $1, 839. 70 

XI. That on April 12, 1799, the said John Hollins and James Biays, owners of 
two-thirds of vessel and freight, insured the same for the voyage aforesaid in 
the sum of $10,000, at a premium cost of $1,500, said policy being underwritten 
by sundry persons hereinafter set forth. 

Thereafter said underwriters duly paid to the insured the sum of $9,S00 as 
and for a total loss by reason of the premises. The names of the underwriters 
on said policy who have appeared in this case, all of whom were citizens of the 
United States, and the amounts paid by each of them on said policy, were as 
follows : 

Daniel Ludlow $1, 000 

H. Sadler & Co 500 

H. Pollock & Co 1, 000 

Yates & Pollock . 1, 000 

Gibbs & Channing 1, 000 

Scriba & Henderson 500 

B. Seaman & Co 1, 000 

John Delafield 300 

Total 6, 300 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 635 

The other underwriters on said policy have not appeared in court and no 
claim is now made in their behalf. 

XII. The firm of Wilson & Maris was composed of William Wilson and 
Mathias Maris, both citizens of the United States, said Wilson being the sur- 
viving partner of the firm. 

The firm of Gibbs & Channing was composed of George Gibbs and Walter 
Channing, both citizens of the United States, the said Channing being the sur- 
viving partner of the firm. 

The firm of Henry Sadler & Co. was composed of Henry Sadler and William 
Craig, boip. citizens of the United States, said Craig being the survivor of the 
firm. 

The firm of Hugh Pollock & Co. was composed of Hugh Pollock and George 
Pollock, both citizens of the United States, said George Pollock being the sur- 
viving partner. 

The firm of Yates & Pollock was composed of Yates and George Pol- 
lock, both citizens of the United States, said George Pollock being the survivor 
of the firm. 

The firm of Benjamin Seaman & Co. was composed of Benjamin Seaman, 
Nicholas C. Rutgers, H. G. Rutgers, Thomas Bibby, Charles L. Ogden, all citi- 
zens of the United States, said Rutgers being the survivor of the firm. 

XIII. The claimants have produced letters of administration upon the estate 
for which they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the 
court that tbe persons for whose estates they appear are the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Washington, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

XIV. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United 
States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, 
and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in 
whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States 
and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between 
the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government 
of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment 
of certain national claims of France against the United States ; and that the 
claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 

Herman Stump, administrator of James Biays, two thousand five 

hundred and eighty-four dollars and eight cents $2, 584. 08 

Cumberland D. Hollins, administrator of John Hollins, nine thousand 

four hundred and seventy-six dollars and ninety-four cents 9, 476. 94 

Robert Gilmor, administrator of Robert Gilmor, three thousand three 

hundred and sixty-seven dollars and four cents 3, 367. 04 

Robert Gilmor, administrator of William Bingham, three thousand 
three hundred and sixty-seven dollars and four cents 3, 367. 04 

Thomas J. Wilson, administrator of William Wilson, surviving part- 
ner of Wilson & Maris, two thousand one hundred and fifteen dol- 
lars and forty-nine cents 2, 115. 49 

Cumberland D. Hollins, administrator of William Hollins, one thou- 
sand eight hundred and thirty-nine dollars and seventy cents 1,839. 70 

Susan Ludlow Warren, administratrix of Daniel Ludlow, nine hun- 
dred and eighty dollars , 980. 00 

Bayard Tuckerman, administrator of Walter Channing, surviving 

partner of Gibbs & Channing, nine hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 

Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, surviving partner 

of Henry Sadler & Co., four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Lucy Franklin Read McDonnell, executrix, etc., of George Pollock, 
surviving partner of Hugh Pollock & Co., nine hundred and eighty 
dollars _T__ 980. 00 



636 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

Lucy Franklin Read McDonnell, executrix, etc., of George Pollock, 
surviving partner of Yates & Pollock, nine hundred and eighty 
dollars . — $9S0. 00 

John L. Rutgers, surviving executor, etc., of Nicholas G. Rutgers, sur- 
viving partner of Benjamin Seaman & Co., nine hundred and eighty 
dollars 980. 00 

George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba, surviving partner 
of Scriba & Henderson, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, two hundred and 
ninety-four dollars ( 294. 00 

Amounting in all to twenty-eight thousand nine hundred and 

twenty-four dollars and twenty-nine cents 28,924.29 

Joseph Ogden, executor of Jane Anne Ferrers, bas proved no valid claim. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed February 2, 1903. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of February, A. D. 1903. 
Tseal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG REBECCA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1886; 23 Stat. L., 283; vol. 1, Supplement to 
R. S., 2d ed., 471.) Vessel brig Rebecca, John B. Thurston, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

4801. Sarah N. Haines and R. F. Haywood Shreve, administrator of William Bowne, 
deceased, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 26th day of April, 1906. The 
claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis, esq., and the United States, defend- 
ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, 
John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Rebecca, John B. Thurston, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
or about September 10, 1797, bound from New York to Jacquemel in the West Indies. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on or about 
October 5, 1797, by the French privateer Cezerine, Captain Goy, from Guadaloupe. 
The facts attending said seizure are set forth in the protest of the captain, mate, and 
one of the seamen, which is as follows, viz: 

"Alexandria in Virginia, set.: 

"Know all men by these presents, that on this day personally appeared before me, 
Cleon Moore, notary public in and for the district of Alexandria, dwelling therein and 
by law duly admitted and sworn, John Brett Thurston, late master of the brigantine 
Rebecca, of New York, Joseph Bounds, mate, and William Johnston, a man before the 
mast of the said brigantine; and severally made oath upon the Holy Evangelists of 
Almighty God: That on the 10th day of September, in the present year of our Lord, 
they sailed from New York aforesaid, bound on a voyage to Jacquemel, in the island 
of Hispaniola, with a cargo of rice, fish, shocks, hoops, and dry goods, the property 
of William Bowne, Allen Jackson, and others, their vessel being then tight and staunch 
and sufficiently manned, victualed, and fitted for the said voyage. 

" That they proceeded on their said voyage till the fifth day of the last month 
(October) without any remarkable event, when in latitude 27 degrees north, and in 
longitude 64£ degrees west, at half past meridian, they saw a sail which proved to be 
a French privateer brig called the Cezerine, manned and armed, and commanded by 
Captain Goy, from Guadaloupe, and were brought to and boarded by her boat, and 
the said master was forced on board the privateer with his papers; and saith a fellow 
met him at the side of the privateer and ordered him to give up his papers and imme- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 637 

diately took them out of his hands, and they were carried into the cabin. That not 
believing hirn to be the captain he made two attempts to go into the cabin, so as not 
to lose sight of his papers, but was repulsed. That in about half an hour the captain 
came upon deck and told him, this deponent, that his vessel was a good prize, and went 
himself on board the Rebecca and put a prize master and nine men on board of her and 
sent all the hands, except the cook and one seaman, on board the privateer, plundered 
the Rebecca of her stores, and upon the said captain's return on board the privateer, 
this deponent, Thurston, asked the said captain if he meant to keep him on board the 
privateer. He answered, he did. And further asked the reason of his being taken 
out of his brig; and told him the papers would show that his vessel was cleared out 
for a French port. To which the said captain answered that his orders were to send 
in all American vessels bound to any ports in the Republic with any sort of English 
goods on board, and that the Rebecca was to go to Porto Rico; and in further conversa- 
tion with him he said the Rebecca would certainly be condemned. 

" That upon the said master's telling him he had no right to take him out of his 
brig, he presented a pistol to his head and swore he would kill him if he said any- 
thing more about the Rebecca, using at the same time the words 'rogue' and 'villain,' 
and threatened to put him in the hold, and heave him overboard, and respecting the 
r61e d' equipage and other necessary papers signed by the French consul at New York, 
he said the consul was a damned rogue, like all Americans, and would put his name to 
anything for $2. That the conduct of the said Goy was more like piracy than any- 
thing else, having stolen from the said deponent, Thurston, his charts, books, and 
other articles. 

"And these deponents further say that after having been detained on board the 
privateer four days they fell in with the ship Eliza, of Alexandria. John Borrowdale, 
master, and were put on board of her with one barrel of condemned bread; that they 
arrived at Alexandria in the said ship Eliza the day next before the day of the date 
hereof at 3 o'clock p. m., and the said master now prays a protest, reserving to himself 
the right and privilege of making any further protest which the nature of his case may 
require, having been deprived of all the papers belonging to the said brigantine 
Rebecca." 

II. The 'brig Rebecca was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 132£i tons 
burthen and was owned solely by William Bowne, a citizen of the United States and 
a resident merchant of New York. 

III. The cargo of the brig Rebecca consisted of rice, dry goods, soap, oil, fish, hoops, 
shakes, potatoes, onions, apples, and sheeting, the most of said cargo being the prop- 
erty of said William Bowne, C. James, R. Hunt, Andrew Cock & Co., and Allen Jack- 
son. The only one of said owners who is in court is the said William Bowne. 

IV. The loss to the said William Bowne, by reason of the said capture, was as fol- 
lows, viz: 

Value of the vessel, 132fi tons. $4, 620 

Freight earnings 2, 200 

Value of Bowne's cargo 6, 060 

Amounting in all to 12, 880 

V. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the e3tate 
of the party for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of 
the court that the person for whose estate they have filed claim is in fact the same 
person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the brig Rebecca, as set forth in 
the preceding findings. 

VI. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and was not a claim 
growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty with Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and was 
not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United 
States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their respective capacity are the owners of said claim, which has 
never been assigned. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and that the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the French 
Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States 
and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said 
claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said 
treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 



638 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from 
the United States: $gj 

Sarah N. Haines and B. F. Haywood Shreve, administrators of William ! 

Bowne, twelve thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars $12, 880 

By the Court. 
Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 9th day of May, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG JOHN. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Brig John, James Scott, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

4027. James F. Adams, administrator of Seth Adams, v. The United States. 

895. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

3562. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

3562. H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 17th day of April, 1906. 

The claimants were represented by George A. & William B. King, L. C. Black, 
William T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defend- 
ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, 
John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van 
Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The brig John, James Scott, jr. , master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 23d 
day of January, 1797, from Boston, bound for London. While peacefully pursuing 
said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer L'Amitie, Jacques 
Francois Zepert, master, and carried into the port of Roscoff, department of the Finis- 
terre, France, and condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce of Morlaix, 
April4, 1797, on the following ground, to wit, " want of a r61ed' equipage in good form," 
whereby said vessel and her cargo became a total loss to the owners. 

After several appeals the John and her cargo were finally condemned June 3, 1799, 
by the civil tribunal of the department of the Cotes du Nord on the following grounds: 

I. Informalities in the passport, bills of lading, and r61e d'equipage, found on board 
the John. 

II. The John was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 137f f tons burthen, 
was built at Duxbury in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1794, and was owned by 
sundry citizens of the United States in the following proportions: 

Joseph Loring, jr., and Seth Adams, composing the firm of Adams & Loring, one- 
third. 

Jonathan P. Hall and John Hall, composing the firm of John Hall & Co., one-third. 
James Scott, jr., one-third. 

III. The cargo of the John at the time of capture consisted of coffee, cotton, oil, and 
other merchandise, and was owned by sundry citizens of the United States in different 
proportions, among whom were said Adams & Loring, Thomas Dickinson, jr., and 
William C. Martin. 

IV. The losses bv reason of the capture and condemnation of the John and her cargo 
were as follows: 

The value of the vessel $5,000.00 

The freight earnings '.. 3,500.00 

The value of the cargo 19, 160. 00 

Premiums of insurance paid 832. 12 

Total 28,492.12 

V. January 14, 1797, said Jonathan P. Hall and John Hall effected insurance on 
their third of said vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $1,500, paying 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 639 

therefor a premium of 7 per cent, by a policy underwritten by sundry citizens of the 
United States, in the sums set opposite their names, viz: 

Stephen Gorham $500 

David Greene 500 

William Smith 500 

July 14, 1799, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,500 as 
and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

After said payment, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 
and the assumption of all the responsibility of Stephen Gorham as insurer in the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, said Gorham assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said 
business. 

After payment, to wit, December 23, 1801, for and in consideration of $6,000 and the 
assumption of all responsibility of David Green as insurer in the office of said Peter C. 
Brooks, said Green assigned to the said Brooks all his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 
and the assumption of all responsibility of William Smith as insurer in the office of 
Peter C. Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said business. 

VI. January 17, 1797, said William C. Martin effected insurance in the office of 
Joseph Taylor on certain cotton owned by him on said vessel in the sum of $4,000, 
paying therefor a premium of 4 per cent on the cotton under deck and 6 per cent on the 
cotton upon deck by a policy underwritten by the following citizens of the United 
States in the sums set opposite their names, viz: 

James Scott $1,000 

William Boardman 1, 000 

Arnold Welles, jr 600 

Arnold Welles 700 

Thomas Cushing 300 

John Brazer 400 

Thereafter the said Taylor as agent duly paid the said assured the sum of $4,000 as 
and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

VII. After the said payment on the policy of insurance in favor of said William C. 
Martin, to wit, June 13, 1801, the following underwriters thereon, to wit, James Scott, 
William Boardman, otherwise known as William H. Boardman, Arnold Welles, Arnold 
Welles, jr., and John Brazer, for and in consideration of $925, cash in hand to them 
paid by said Seth Adams, one of the part owners of said vessel and cargo, did grant 
and assign and make over to the said Adams all their right, title, and interest in law 
and in equity in said policy of insurance and whatever sum of money might thereafter 
be received on the same. 

After the payment of the above policy of insurance, to wit, March 18, 1802, the 
said William C. Martin, for and in consideration of the above set forth assignment of 
the therein-named underwriters, to whom he had previously abandoned his interest, 
so far as the same was insured, upon the payment to him of the said policy by the 
said Taylor, as agent, and for and in consideration of one dollar, cash in hand to him 
paid by said Seth Adams, did assign and transfer to the said Adams all his interest 
in said property. 

Thomas Cushing, one of the underwriters in said policy, made no assignment of 
his interest to said Seth Adams. 

February 6, 1801, said Thomas Dickason, jr., for and in consideration of the sum 
of $1,200 cash in hand to him by said Seth Adams, did assign and transfer to the said 
Adams all his right, title, and interest in a certain invoice of cotton on said vessel 
and owned by him. 

VIII. After the loss of the brig John and her cargo said Seth Adams and Joseph 
Loring, jr., dissolved their copartnership, and upon a division of the assets of the 
firm all claims on account of French spoliations became, by the terms of the settle- 
ment between the partners, the sole individual property of said Seth Adams. 

IX. The losses of said Seth Adams, by reason of said capture and condemnation, 
were as follows: 

One-third value of vessel $1, 666. 66 

One-third freight earnings 1, 166. 66 

Cargo owned by Adams & Loring. 8, 605. 80 

Total 11,439.12 



640 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Said Seth Adams suffered further loss growing out of said capture and condemna- 
tion by reason of certain assignments made to him, as set forth in Finding VII, is 
follows: 

Value of goods owned by Thomas Dickason, jr $5, 848. 71 

Value of goods owned by William C. Martin, including premium of insur- 
ance paid by said Martin, $4,727.12, less $4,000 received 727. 12 

Amount of underwriters' claims in Taylor's office 3, 700. 00 

Total held by assignment 10, 275. 83 

X. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the e&tates 
of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction 
of the court that the persons for whose estates they appear are the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the capture of the John and her cargo, a3 set forth in the 
preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They were net 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under 
the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 
22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provi- 
sions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

Tne court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the French 
Republic and the United States concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

James F. Adams, administrator of Seth Adams, eleven thousand four 

hundred and thirty-nine dollai'3 and twelve cents , $11, 439. 12 

James F. Adams, administrator of Seth Adams, as assignee of Thomas 
Dickason, jr., William C. Martin, James Scott, William Boardman, 
Arnold Welles, Arnold Welles, jr., and John Brazer, ten thousand two 
hundred and seventy-five dollars and eighty-three cents 10, 275. 83 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand five hun- 
dred dollars 1, 500. 00 

H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing, three hundred 
dollars 300. 00 

Amounting in all to twenty-three thousand five hundred and four- 
teen dollars and ninety-five cents 23, 514. 95 

The court further finds that said Thomas Cushing was indebted to the United 
States in the sum of $7,301.94, which became due, and that no evidence has been 
produced to establish the payment thereof. 

Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1906. 

fsEAL.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 641 

SHIP MADISON 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Ship Madison, Samuel Hancock, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

14814. Richard S. Whitney, administrator of John Skinner. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 26th day of April. 1906. The 
claimant was represented by George A. & William B. King, and the United States, 
defendant, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Jus- 
tice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van 
Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The ship Madison, Samuel Hancock, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
from Cadiz, Spain, for Rotterdam, Holland. While peacefully pursuing said voyage 
she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Lc Requin ( The Shark) on the 
19th day of January, 1798. 

February 26, 1798, the tribunal of commerce of Lorient, department of the Morbi- 
han, rendered a decree of condemnation which assigns no grounds whatever. An 
appeal was taken to the civil tribunal of Morbihan, by whom, June 26, 1798, the 
judgment was affirmed. The decree of that court is quite full and, after giving the 
arguments of the parties on both sides, concludes by affirming the decree of condem- 
nation on the ground that the vessel was not provided with a passport agreeing with 
the form annexed to the treaty between France and the United States and mentioned 
in aiticles 25 and 27 of that treaty: and that the passport delivered by the United 
States consul at Cadiz — elsewhere styled the United States minister — December 23, 
1797, immediately prior to the departure of the vessel from that port can not be sub- 
stituted for the form for which the treaty provides. 

An appeal was taken from this decree to the court of cassation and a deposit of 150 
francs made for costs. The demand in cassation was rejected November 19, 1798. 

II. The Madison was a registered vessel of the United States, belonging to the firm, 
of John Skinner & Sons, merchants, of Boston, Mass. The firm consisted of John 
Skinner, sr., Richard Skinner, and John Skinner, jr. Of these, John Skinner, jr., 
of whom the claimant in this case is administrator, was the last surviving partner. 
All the members of the firm were citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo consisted of 196 lasts or lastres of salt belonging to John Skinner & 
Sons, owners of the vessel. 

The value of said 196 lastres of salt was $6.10 per lastre, adding cost of loading, $6.50, 
making its total value $1,274. 

IV. The losses to the firm of Richard Skinner & Sons by the capture of the Madison 
are as follows: 

Vessel $7, 000 

Freight 1, 000 

Cargo: 196 lastres of salt, at $6.10 per lastre; total cost, including that of load- 
ing, $6.50 per lastre 1, 274 

Total 9, 274 

V. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the estate of 
the party for whom he appears and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the person for whose estate he has filed a claim is the same person who suffered 
loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Madison and cargo, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. It was not a claim. 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned except as aforesaid 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 41 



642 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

W= The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Gov- 
ernment prior to the ratification of the convention between the French Republic and 
the United States concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims 
were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty 
in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against 
the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the 
United States: 

Richard S. Whitney, administrator of John Skinner, jr., nine thousand two hundred 
and seventy-four dollars ($9,274). 

By the Court. 
Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph. 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG POLLY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Brig Polly, Joseph Clements, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2216. Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Thomas Cross. Greeley Hannaford v. The 
United States. 

preliminary statement. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on' the 18th day of April, 1906. The 
claimant was represented by George A. King, esq., and the United States, defendants, 
by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John 
W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

conclusions op pact. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Polly, Joseph Clements, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 
25th day of October, 1796, from London bound for Norfolk, Va. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer L' Amour 
de la Patrie (Love of Country), and was taken into the Swedish island of St. Bartholo- 
mew and her papers, with some of the officers and crew, taken to the isle of Guadaloupe. 

The governor of St. Bartholomew detained the Polly and her cargo pending a 
decision of the court of Sweden until, under and by order of the King of Sweden dated 
Hague Castle, September 24, 1797, said vessel and cargo were delivered to the owners 
of the French privateer, and thereafter became a total loss to the owners. 

II. The Polly was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 182 1-| tons bur- 
den; was built at Cape Elizabeth, Me., in the year 1795, and was owned by Thomas 
Cross, Greeley Hannaford, and Joseph Clements, citizens of the United States, in 
equal proportions of one-third each. 

III. The ownership and value of the cargo does not appear. 

IV. The losses by reason of the seizure of the Polly by said French privateer were 
as follows: 

Value of vessel $6, 370 

Freight earnings 4, 550 

Premium of insurance paid on vessel 40 

Total 10, 960 

V. The loss of Thomas Cross by reason of said capture was as follows: 

One-third value of vessel • $2, 123. 33 

One-third freight earnings 1, 516. 67 

Total 3, 640. 00 

VI. By a policy of insurance underwritten in the office kept by Daniel Epes, Port- 
land, Me., Greeley Hannaford obtained insurance for $333 on the vessel and $500 on 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 643 

the cargo, being a total of $833, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent on the vessel, 
amounting to $40 and $32.50 on the cargo, making a total of $72.50. Whether said 
insurance on the cargo was on the account of said Greeley Hannaford or not does 
not appear. 
VII. The loss of said Greeley Hannaford was as follows: 

One-third value of vessel $2, 123. 33 

One-third freight earnings 1, 516. 67 

Premium of insurance paid on vessel 40. 00 



Total 3, 680. 00 

Less insurance received on vessel 333. 00 



Leaving net loss to him 3, 347. 00 

VIII. The claimants herein have produced letter of administration upon the estates 
of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of 
the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same per- 
sons who suffered loss by reason of the capture of the Polly and her cargo, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d 
day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in -whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th day of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure by the French was illegal, 
and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French 
Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the French Republic 
and the United States concluded on the 30th day of September. 1800; that said claims 
were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty 
in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against 
the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sums from the 
United States: 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Thomas Cross, three thousand six hundred 
and forty dollars $3, 640 

Harry R. Virgin, administrator of Greeley Hannaford, three thousand three 
hundred and forty-seven dollars 3, 347 



Total 6, 987 

Amounting in all to six thousand nine hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($6,987). 

By the Court. 
Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG FAIR COLUMBIAN. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283 (Vol. I, supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471) . Vessel brig Fair Columbian, Joseph Myrick, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

182. Susan R. Groverman, administratrix of Anthony Groverman, surviving part- 
ner of D'Werhagen & Groverman v. The United States. 

264. David Stewart and Isabella Rutter, administrators of Thomas Rutter, v. The 
United States. 

357. Louisa T. Carroll, administratrix of William Van Wyck, v. The United States. 
1776. Gustavus W. Ridgely, administrator of George P. Keeports, v. The United 
States. 



644 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2087. Sarah C. Tilghinan, administratrix of Joseph Forman, v. The United States. 
2646. John Pentland Brown, receiver of the Marine Insurance Company, v. The 

United States. 
3788. John Pentland Brown, receiver of the Marine Insurance Company, v. The 

United States. 
5456. Ferdinand C. Latrobe, receiver of the unincorporated association known as 

the Marine Insurance Office of Baltimore, Maryland, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 18th day of April, 190.6. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Fair Columbian, Joseph Myrick, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on the 2d day of October, 1799, from Baltimore bound to Antigua. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas, on or about the 20th day of said 
month, by the French privateer Bayonnaise, Captain Lamnosne, who took out the 
entire crew with the exception of the master and placed on board a prize master and 
crew, who conducted the said vessel to St. Juan, in the island of Porto Rico. There- 
after, to wit, June 5, 1800, both vessel and cargo were condemned and ordered sold 
for the benefit of the captors by the tribunal of commerce and prizes in the island of 
Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The ground of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was as follows, viz: 

That the affirmation at the foot of the sea letter of which the captain was the bearer 

was not signed by officers of marine, and that consequently it was in contravention of 

his passport. 

II. The Fair Columbian was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 141ff 
tons burthen, built in Maryland in the year 1795, and owned solely by Joseph Forman, 
a citizen of the United States, residing in Baltimore in the State of Maryland. 

III. The cargo of the Fair Columbian consisted of flour, chairs, corn, tobacco, and 
pork, and was owned solely by the said Joseph Forman. 

IV. The losses to said Joseph Forman by reason of the seizure and condemnation 
of the Fair Columbian and cargo were as follows: ; 

Value of the vessel $5, 000. 00 

Freight earnings '. . .. 2, 336. 00 

Value of cargo, per invoice 6, 931. 33 

Premiums of insurance paid 1, 500. 00 

Amounting in all to 15, 767. 33 

Deduct insurance received 10, 610. 00 

Net loss . . . 5, 157 . 33 

V. November 9, 1799, said Joseph Forman effected insurance on said cargo in the 
office of George P. Keeports, an insurance broker in the city of Baltimore, in the sum 
of $7,500, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent for the said voyage, by a policy 
underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum 
set opposite his name, viz: 

John Donnell $1, 000 

John Hollins 500 

Cumberland Dugan 500 

D' Werhagen & Groverman ■ 1, 000 

Edward Johnson 500 

Robert 0. Boislandry 500 

Benjamin Williams 500 

Thomas Rutter 1, 000 

Bedford & Morton 500 

Robert McKirn 1, 000 

John Hillen 500 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 645 

Thereafter the said underwriters, with the exception of John Hillen, duly paid the 
said assured the full amount of their respective subscriptions less the customary abate- 
ment of 2 per cent. 

November 9, 1799, said Joseph Forman effected insurance on said vessel for the 
said voyage in the said office of George P. Iveeports in the sum of $5,000, paying 
therefor a premium of 12 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, 
citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: 

John Donnell $500 

Cumberland Dugan 500 

John Rollins 500 

Edward Johnson 500 

Bedford & Morton 500 

William Lorman 1, 000 

William Van Wyck 1,000 

John Hillen 500 

Thereafter the said underwriters, with the exception of John Hillen, who under- 
wrote for $500, and William Van Wyck, who underwrote for $1,000, and paid $320, 
duly paid the said assured the full amount of their respective subscriptions less the 
customary abatement of 2 per cent. 

VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of 
the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Fair Coluvibian 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the llepublic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their respective capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the followins' 
sums from the United States: 

Sarali C. Tilghman, administratrix of Joseph Forman, five thousand one 

hundred and fifty-seven dollars and thirty-three cents $5, 157. 33 

Gustav W. Lurman, administrator of John Donnell, one thousand four 

hundred and seventy dollars. 1, 470. 00 

Mary Jane Thurston, administratrix of John Hollins, nine hundred and 

eighty dollars 980. 00 

Cumberland Dugan, administrator of Cumberland Dugan, nine hundred 

and eighty dollars 980. 00 

Susan R. Groverman, administratrix of Anthony Groverman, for and on 

behalf of the firm of D'Werhagen & Groverman, nine hundred and 

eighty dollars 980. 00 

David Stewart, administrator of Edward Johnson, nine hundred and 

eighty dollars 980. 00 

David Stewart, administrator of Robert C. Boislandry, four hundred and 

ninety dollars 490. 00 

Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, four hundred 

and ninety dollars 490. 00 

David Stewart and Isabella Rutter, administrators of Thomas Rutter, nine 

hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 

Nathaniel Morton, administrator of Nathaniel Morton, for and on behalf 

of the firm of Bedford & Morton, nine hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 

Katharine S. Montell, administratrix of Robert McKim, nine hundred and 

eighty dollars .jp: 980. 00 



646 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

David Stewart, administrator of William Lorman, nine hundred and eighty 
dollars $980. 00 

Louisa T. Carroll, administratrix of William Van Wyck, three hundred 
and twenty dollars 320. 00 

Amounting in all to fifteen thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven 
dollars and thirty-three cents 15, 767. 33 

John Pentland Brown, receiver of the Marine Insurance Company, Ferdinand C. 
Latrobe, receiver of the estates of Aquilla Brown, John Sherlock, and George Grundy, 
representing all the partners underwriting in the unincorporated association known 
as the Marine Insurance Office of Baltimore, Md., John H. Jenkins, administrator 
of John Hillen, and Gustavus W. Ridgely, administrator of George P. Keeports, have 
proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 7, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of May, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

BRIG WILLIAM. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Brig William, David Smith, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

105. Augusta H. Chapman, administratrix of Reuben Shapley, v. The United 

States. 
1798. Fritz H. Jordan, administrator of Leonard Smith, v. The United States. 
2366. Frederick M. Sise, administrator of James Sheafe, v. The United States 
3113. Joseph A. Titcomb, administrator of John Wells, v. The United States., 
3113. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 
4414. William A. Hayes, 2d administrator of Nathaniel A. Haven, v. The United 

States. 

5485 1 

5486 r^ranklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, v. The United States. 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 18th day of April, 1906. 

The claimants were represented by John St. Clair Brookes, James Lowndes, Edward 
Lander, Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and John 
W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, with the briefs of counsel on both sides, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig William, David Smith, master, sailed on a commercial vayage from 
Kingston, Jamaica, on or about the 11th day of October, 1798, bound to Norfolk, Va. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas, on or about 
the 20th or 21st day of the same month, by the French privateer El diablo pasa por 
todo (Devil take all), Capt. Baptiste Romany, and carried into Habana, and was, 
with her cargo, on the 2d or 3d clay of January, 1799, condemned as good prize by the 
French tribunal of commerce at Guarico, department of the north of Santo Domingo, 
whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 

The sole ground of condemnation in the language of the decree was as follows: 

"The tribunal, taking it into consideration that the brig William at the time of her 
capture was sailing from Jamaica laden with a cargo of sugar, rum, and coffee, the 
productions of that island, shipped on board the said brig in Kingston, as is proved 
by her invoices, bills of lading, and the clearance from the custom-house at Kingston, 
and that consequently the brig William comes within the scope of the law of the 
20th Nivose, year the sixth, which says expressly: 'The character of vessels, so far 
as relates to their neutrality, will be determined by their cargo. Any vessel, there- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 647 

fore, found on the high seas laden wholly or in part with merchandise coming from 
England or her possessions will be declared a good prize, whoever may be the owner 
of such goods or merchandise.' " 

II. The William was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of HOfi tons 
burthen; was built at Amesbury, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned wholly by 
Leonard Smith, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Newburyport, in said 
State. 

III. The cargo of the William, at the time of capture, consisted of sugar, rum, and 
coffee, and was owned, among others, by said Leonard Smith, the owner of the vessel. 

IV. The losses of said Leonard Smith by reason of the capture and condemnation 
of the William and her cargo were as follows: 

The value of the vessel $4, 000. 00 

The freight earnings 429. 00 

Value of his portion of the cargo 1, 340. 00 

Premiums of insurance paid 929. 66 

Total 6, 698. 66 

Less insurance received by him 3, 355. 00 

Leaving net loss to him 3, 343. 66 

V. July 28, 1798, Leonard Smith effected insurance in the office of John Pearson, 
jr., at Newburyport, Mass., in the sum of $2,900 on the vessel, paying for the amount 
received by him thereunder a premium of 33^ per cent, amounting to $446.66. 

Thereafter, under a compromise between the owner and the underwriters, the 
said John Pearson, jr., as agent for the underwriters, duly paid the assured the sum 
of $1,340. 

The underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case and the loss sus- 
tained by each are as follows. 

James Prince $300 

John Wells 90 

Zebedee Cook 90 

William Cook 45 

Edward Tappan 45 

Jerr Nelson 45 

Moses Savory : 45 

December 11, 1798, Leonard Smith effected insurance in the office of said John 
Pearson, jr., at Newburyport, Mass., in the sum of $1,900 on his interest in the cargo 
and freight, paying for the amount received by him thereunder a premium of 20 per 
cent, or $283. 

Thereafter, under a compromise between the owner and the underwriters, except 
William Bartlet, the said John Pearson, jr., duly paid said Leonard Smith the sum 
of §1,415. .' 

The underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case and the loss sus- 
tained by each are as follows: 

Jerr Nelson $45 

Nathan Hoyt 1 45 

William Bartlet : 1, 000 

John Pettingell 135 

John Pearson, jr 45 

July 26, 1798, Leonard Smith effected insurance in the office of John Peirce, at 
Portsmouth, N. H., in the sum of $600 on the vessel, paying therefor a premium of 
33£ per cent, or $200. 

Thereafter said Peirce, as agent for the underwriters, paid to the said Leonard 
Smith the sum of $600 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case and the loss sus- 
tained by each are as follows: 

Nathaniel A. Haven $200 

Reuben Shapley 200 

All of the above underwriters were citizens of the United States. 

VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the various parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satis- 
faction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the 
same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the 
William and cargo, as set forth in the preceding findings. 



648 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under 
the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 
22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Fritz H. Jordan, administrator of Leonard Smith, three thousand three 

hundred and forty-three dollars and sixty-six cents $3, 343. 66 

Joseph A. Titcomb, administrator of John Wells, ninety dollars 90. 00 

Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, three hundred dollars. . 300. 00 
William A. Hayes, 2nd, administrator of Nathaniel A. Haven, two hundred 

dollars 200.00 

Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, forty-five dollars 45. 00 

Benjamin F. Peach, administrator of Moses Savory, forty-five dollars 45. 00 

Jeremiah Nelson, administrator of Jeremiah Nelson, ninety dollars 90. 00 

Charles E. Plummer, administrator of William Cook, forty-five dollars 45. 00 

Arthur A. Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, ninety dollars 90. 00 

Jane S. Gerrish, administratrix of Edward Tappan, forty-five dollars 45. 00 

Helen A. Pike, administratrix of John Pettingell, one hundred and thirty- 
five dollars 135. 00 

Lawrence H. H. Johnson, administrator of William Bartlet, one thousand 

dollars 1, 000. 00 

Eben F. Stone, administrator of Nathan Hoyt, forty-fiye dollars 45. 00 

Augusta H. Chapman, administratrix of Reuben Shapley, two hundred 

dollars '.. 200.00 

Henry B. Reed, administrator of Andrew Frothingham, fifty dollars 50. 00 

Total 5, 723. 66 

Amounting in all to five thousand seven hundred and twenty-tnree dollars and 
sixty-six cents. 

Frederick M. Sise, administrator of James Sheafe, deceased, has proved no valid 

claim. 

* * * * * * * 

By the Court. 
Filed May 21, 1906. ' 

A true copy of the findings filed by the court and of the award in each of the sev- 
eral cases, excepting and omitting by direction of the court the case of David Stewart, 
administrator of David Stewart, deceased, No. 5401, in which a motion for a new trial 
has been filed. 

Test: This 29th day of May, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG JASON. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Brig Jason Edward Smith, master. 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2369. James Emerton, administrator of Benjamin West, v. The United States. 
2369. James Emerton, administrator of Benjamin West, jr., v. The United States 
2770. John Stewart and Henry Baltzell, receivers of the Marine Insurance Company, 

v. The United States. 
3155. Lemuel P. Townsend, administrator of Jacob Adams, v. The United States. 
3769. J. Pentland, receiver of the Marine Insurance Company, v. The United States. 
5429. Ferdnand C. Latrobe, receiver of the unincorporated association known as the 

Marine Insurance Office of Baltimore, Md., v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 649 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 1st day of February, 1906* 
The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. Clagett, William 

T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, George A. King, Frank P. Clark, and John E. 

Semmes, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through 

his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was 

Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSION OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Jason, Edward Smith, master, jailed on a commercial voyage on the 
11th day of October, 1799, from Baltimore, Md., bound for Martinico. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage, on or about the 3d day of November, 1799, she was seized 
upon the high seas by the French privateer La Favorite, Captain Venteur, and car- 
ried into Point Petre, Guadaloupe, where said vessel and her cargo were condemned 
by the tribunal of commerce and of prizes sitting at Basse Terre in said island, whereby 
the same became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 

1. That the act of affirmation at the bottom of the sea letter, or passport, does not 
conform to the model annexed to the treaty of February 6, 1778, and is not clothed 
with the signature of the marine officer, consequently is an infraction of article 25 of 
said treaty. 

2. That the captain of the vessel admitted that he had no r6le d'equipage. 

II. The Jason was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 91 tons and 72 
feet burthen, was built at Salem, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned by Benja- 
min V\ est and Benjamin West, jr., in equal proportions, both of whom were citizens 
of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Jason at the time of the capture consisted of flour and corn 
and was owned by Jacob Adams, a citizen of the United States. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Jason and her 
cargo were as follows: 

The value of the vessel .' $2, 511. 52 

The freight earnings. 2, 238. 25 

The value of the cargo 6, 353. 00 

Premium of insurance paid 482. 50 



Amounting in all to 11, 585. 27 

V. October 11, 1799, Jacob Adams, owner of the cargo, effected insurance on same 
in the Marine Insurance Office, in the city of Baltimore, in the sum of $6,000, paying 
therefor a premium of §4S2.50. 

Thereafter said insurance office paid to the assured the sum of $5,850 as and for a 
total loss by reason of the premises, being the face value of said policy less the cus- 
tomary rebate of 2\ per cent. 

Ferdinand C. Latrobe is the receiver, duly appointed by the circuit court of Balti 
more City, Md., of the estates of Aquilla Brown, John Sherlock, and George Grundy, 
citizens of the United States, representing all the partners underwriting in the said 
Marine Insurance Office. 

VI. Said Jacob Adams was indebted to the United States in the sum of $3,112 upon 
certain unpaid custom-house bonds, of which no payment appears to have been made. 
Said bonds were put in suit and a judgment recovered thereon, but the same appears 
still unsatisfied of record. 

VII. The losses to the different claimants by reason of said capture and condemna- 
tion were as follows: 

Benjamin West: 

One-half value of vessel and freight earnings , $2, 374. 88 

Benjamin West, jr.: 

One-half value of vessel and freight earnings 2, 374. 88 

Jacob Adams: 

Value of cargo 6, 353. 00 

Premium of insurance paid. 482. 50 

Total . 6, 835. 50 

Less insurance received" 5, 850. 00 

Leaving net loss to him 985. 50 



650 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



VIII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proven to the satis- 
faction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the 
same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the 
Jason, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

IX. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and were not 
claims growing out of the act of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under 
the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 
22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Gov- 
ernment prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and 
the French Republic concluded on the 30th clay of September, 1800, that said claims 
were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty 
in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 
against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums 
from the United States: 

James Emerton, administrator of Benjamin West, two thousand three 

hundred and seventy-four dollars and eighty-eight cents $2, 374. 88 

James Emerton, administrator of Benjamin West, jr., two thousand three 

hundred and seventy-four dollars and eighty-nine cents 2, 374. 89 

Ferdnand C. Latrobe, receiver of Aquila Brown, John Sherlock, and 
George Grundy, representing all the partners underwriting in the Ma- 
rine Insurance Office, five thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars 5, 850.00 

Amounting in all to ten thousand five hundred and ninety-nine 
dollars and seventy-seven cents x 10, 599. 77 

John Pentland Brown, receiver of the estate of Marine Insurance Office, and John 
Stewart and Henry Baltzell, receivers of the Marine Insurance Company, have proved 
no valid claims. 

No award is made in favor of Lemuel P. Townsend, administrator of Jacob Adams, 
said Adams being indebted to the United States in a sum exceeding the amount of 
his losses, as hereinbefore set forth. * 

By the Court. 

Filed March 12, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 2d day of June, A. D. 1906. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



[Court of Claims. 

No. of 
case. 



BRIG DELAWARE. 

French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., p. 283.) Brig Delaware, 
James Dunphy, master.] 



Claimant. 

728. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. 

The United States. 

729. The Insurance Company of Pennsylvania v. The United States. 

1343. Henry Pratt Mclvean, surviving executor of Henry Pratt v. The United 

States. 
5124. The City of Philadelphia, administrator of Stephen Girard v. The United 

States. 
4766. C. D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 17th day of April, 1906. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis,- Theodore J. Pickett, 

and Thomas Stokes, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 651 

General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., 
with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Delaware, James Dunphy, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
from Philadelphia on April 26, 1798, bound to Cape Nicola Mole, Hispaniola. While 
peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on .or about the 
8th day of May, 1798, by the French privateer Independence, but was subsequently 
retaken on tfhe 27th day of the said month of May by the British privateer Teaser, 
and carried into Antigua. The court of vice admiralty sitting at St. John, decreed 
one-sixth part of the value of the vessel and cargo in lieu of salvage to be paid the 
recaptors, and after paying salvage the sum of 114,335.78 was paid over to the owner 
of the vessel and cargo. 

The facts found by the court are set forth in the protest of the master as follows: 

James Dunphy, master of the brigantine Delaivare, of Philadelphia, in the United 
States of America, who, being by me duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelist of 
Almighty God, deposeth and saith that he sailed in and on board the said brigan- 
tine Delaware, in his said capacity as master, from Philadelphia aforesaid, on the 
27th day of April last past, the said brigantine Delaware having on board 2,500 bar- 
rels and 180 half barrels of flour and 50 boxes of soap, the property of Ambrose Vasse, 
merchant in Philadelphia; 7 tierces of hams, 6 kegs of lard, 1 keg of butter, and 2 
barrels of loaf sugar, the property of him, the said James Dunphy, and bound to 
Cape Nicola Mole, in Hispaniola; the said brigantine Delaware was, on the day of 
her so sailing from Philadelphia, in good order and condition, and well and suffi- 
ciently found, fitted, victualed, and manned for the said voyage; that they pro- 
ceeded thereon without any material circumstance happening until the 8th day of 
this present month of May, when, being in latitude 30° north and longitude 70° 
west, the said brigantine Delaware was captured by the French armed brigantine 
called the Independence, of 12 guns, belonging to the island of Guadaloupe and com- 
manded by one Petit Pierre. 

That they took from said brigantine Delaware a new boat, with a set of oars, rud- 
ders, and tiller, a large coil of 2£-ineh rope, two new tackle falls, with blocks, twine, 
marline, new lines, several paints and paint brushes, together with the following 
articles belonging to this deponent (James Dunphy), that is to say, a keg of lard, 
a teg oi butter, and a barrel of loaf sugar, after which they took the mate and all 
hands belonging to the said brigantine Delaware, except this deponent (James Dun- 
phy) and a boy, on board the Independence, and sent a prize master and 14 hands 
on board the Delaware, who took charge of her and were proceeding with her to the, 
island of Guadaloupe, but at 8 o'clock yesterday morning, the brigantine Delaivare 
being between this island and Guadaloupe, she was met with by the privateer 
schooner called the Teazer, belonging to this island of Antigua and commanded by 
James O'Brion, who retook the said brigantine Delaware and brought her into the 
port of St. John, in this island Antigua, yesterday evening, and, lastly, the said 
James Dunphy saith that during the time the said brigantine Delaware was in pos- 
session of the French they broached half a barrel of flour and also a keg of lard and 
a tierce of hams belonging to him, and that from the press of sail which they car- 
ried in order to get as soon as possible into Guadaloupe the said brigantine strained 
very much, and from their not pumping her he is very apprehensive that the ground 
tier has received damage. 

Wherefore I, the said notary, at the request of the said James Dunphy, did and do 
hereby solemnly protest against the French armed brig called the Independence, the 
said Petit Pierre, the other officers and crew, as well as against the said privateer 
schooner called the Teazer, the said John O'Brion, his officers and crew, and all 
others concerned in the taking and retaking the said brigantine Delaware, for .all 
losses, costs, charges, damages, and expenses already suffered or sustained, or to be 
hereafter suffered or sustained, by any person or persons concerned in the said brig- 
antine Delaware or her lading or any part thereof for or by reason of the premises. 

II. The Delaware was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 214f r 'i tons 
burthen, was built at Kensington, Pa., in the year 1795, and was owned solely by 
Ambrose Vasse, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Philadelphia. 

III. The cargo of the Delaware consisted of flour and soap, and was owned by said 
Ambrose Vasse, the owner of the vessel. 



652 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

IV. The losses of Ambrose Vasse by reason of the capture and condemnation of 
the Delaware were as follows: 

Value of cargo $14, 341. 89 

Premium of insurance on cargo 2, 447. 23 

Premium of insurance on vessel 1, 575. 00 

Freight earnings 2, 810. 00 



Total 21, 174. 12 

Less amounts received from insurance companies $17, 427. 05 

Less amount retained by Vasse 2, 932. 45 

20,359,50 



Leaving net loss to Vasse 814. 62 

V. April 30, 1798, said Ambrose Vasse effected insurance on said cargo with the 
Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. 

Thereafter the said company at different times to wit, September 3, 1798, and Janu- 
ary 1, 1799, paid to the said Vasse different sums amounting in all to the sum of 
$2,549.25 as and for a total loss. But subsequently the said insurance company re- 
ceived the sum of $1,777.78 as its share of sales of said cargo, making its final loss as 
follows: 

Amount of payment to Vasse $2, 549. 25 

Deduct proceeds of cargo received 1, 777. 78 



Net loss to Insurance Company of North America 771. 47 

VI. April 26, 1798, said Ambrose Vasse effected insurance on said vessel for said 
voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania in the sum of $4,300, 
paying therefor a premium of 17J per cent. 

Thereafter the said company duly paid to said Vasse the sum of $414.95 as and for 
a general average loss on said policy. 

April 26, 1798, said Ambrose Vasse effected insurance on said cargo for said voyage 
with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania in the sum of $5,500, paying 
therefor a premium of 17£ per cent. 

Thereafter the said company duly paid to said Vasse the sum of $5,390 as and for a 
total loss upon said policy. 

Subsequently the said company received the sum of $3,702.18 as its share of the 
sales of said cargo, making its final loss as follows: 

Amount paid on vessel $414. 95 

Amount paid on cargo 5, 390. 00 



5, 804. 95 
Less proceeds of cargo received 3, 702. 18 



Net loss to the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania 2, 102. 77 

VII. April 20, 1798, said Ambrose "Vasse effected insurance on said cargo for said 
voyage in the office of Shoemaker & Berrett in the sum of $8,800, paying therefor a 
premium of 17^ per cent by policy underwritten by the following persons, in the sum 
set opposite their names, respectively, to wit: 

Pratt & Kintzing $500 ! John Savage $400 

Pettit & Bayard 500 ! Thomas and John Clifford . . 500 

Miller & Murray 500 i Willing & Francis 800 

Bundle & Leach 600 J Robert Smith & Co 500 

John Miller, jr 500 : James S. Cox 300 



Charles Petit 300 

John Warder 300 

Jacob Bidgway 300 

W 7 illiam McMurtrie 300 



Baker & Comegys 500 

Summerl & Brown 500 

Pragers & Co.. 500 

Jesse W T aln 500 

Thomas Murgatroyd 500 

December 31, 1798, said Shoemaker & Berrett as agents duly paid the said assured 
the sum of $8,624, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said 
policy less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. 



• ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 653 

Subsequently said underwriters received £1,329 15s. Id., which produced the sum 
of $5,923.37 as their share of the sales of said cargo, making their final loss as here stated, 
to wit: 

Amount paid Ambrose Vasse $8, 624. 00 

Less proceeds of cargo received 5, 923. 37 

Total loss ' 2, 700. 63 

The said loss of $2,700.63 was borne and paid by said underwriters in the same pro- 
portion as they subscribed the policy, being a loss of 30.68 per cent to each, respectively. 

April 20, 1798, said Ambrose Vasse effected insurance on said vessel for said voyage 
in the office of Shoemaker & Bcrrett in the sum of 84,700, paying therefor a premium of 
17A per cent by a policy underwritten by the following persons in the sums set opposite 
their names, respectively, to wit: 

Pratt & Kintzing §400 ' John Savage $200 

Pettit & Bayard 300 Thomas Murgatroyd 300 

Miller & Murray 300 ; Willing & Francis 400 

Rundle & Leach 400 Robert Smith & Co 300 

John Miller, jr 300 ! James S. Cox 300 

Baker & Comegys 300 Charles Pettit 200 

Pragers & Co 400 Stephen Gifard 300 

Jesse Wain 300 

December 31, 1798, said Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, duly paid the .said assured 
the sum of $448.85, as and for average loss by reason of the premises, being 9.55 per 
cent of the sum underwritten by each underwriter. 

The loss of each underwriter was as follows: 

Pratt & Kintzing $191. 65 John Savage $141. 86 

Pettit & Bayard 182. 10 Thomas & John Clifford 153. 44 

Miller & Murray 182. 10 Willing & Francis 283. 70 

Rundle & Leach 222. 33 Robert Smith & Co 182. 09 

John Miller, jr 182.10 James S. Cox 120.72 

Baker & Comegys 182. 10 Charles Pettit 111. 17 

Summerl & Brown 153.44 Jacob Ridgway 92.07 

Pragers & Co 191.64 William McMurtrie 92.07 

Jesse Wain 182.09 Stephen Girard 28.65 

Thomas Murgatroyd 182 . 09 | 

VIII. The firm of Pragers & Co. was composed of Mark Prager, Michael Prager, and 
Mark Prager, jr. Michael Prager died in 1793, and the firm was continued by Mark 
Prager, sr., and Mark Prager, jr., until May, 1797, when Mark Prager, sr., withdrew, 
and Mark Prager, jr., with his brother, John Prager, took over all the concerns of the 
house and continued in. business under the same firm name of Pragers & Co. Said 
Mark Prager, jr., was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Pratt & Kintzing was composed solely of Henry Pratt and Abraham 
Kintzing; said Henry Pratt was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Pettit & Bayard was composed solely of Andrew Pettit and Andrew 
Bayard; said Andrew Pettit was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Miller & Murray was composed solely of William Miller and Alexander 
Murray; said Alexander Murray was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Rundle & Leach was composed solely of George Rundle and Thomas 
Leech; it does not appear who was the survivor. 

The firm of Baker & Comegys was composed solely of Jacob Baker and Cornelius 
Comegys; said Jacob Baker was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Summerl & Brown was composed solely of Joseph Summerl and Isaac 
Brown ; said Joseph Summerl was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Thomas & John Clifford was composed solely of John and Thomas Clif- 
ford; said John Clifford was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Willing & Francis was composed solely of Thomas Willing, Thomas M. 
Willing, and Thomas W. Francis; said Thomas M. Willing was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Robert Smith & Co. was composed solely of Robert Smith and James 
Robertson; said Robert Smith was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Pragers & Co, were adjudicated bankrupts and Andrew Bayard and 
others became their assignees; said Bayard was the surviving assignee and his adminis- 
trator, Bayard Henry, has filed claim for this case. Charles Prager, administrator of 
Mark Prager, jr., representing the next of kin, has been substituted as claimant in lieu 
of J. Bayard Henry, administrator as above. 



654 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN" CLAIMS. • 

The firm of Rundle & Leech were adjudicated bankrupts, and John Savage and one 
other became their assignees. Claim has been filed in this case by D. Fitzhugh Savage , 
administrator of John Savage. J. Bayard Henry, administrator of both George Rundle 
and Thomas Leech as representing the next of kin, has been substituted as claimant 
in lieu of D. Fitzhugh Savage, administrator as above. 

Thomas Murgatroyd was adjudicated bankrupt. Sara Learning, administratrix of 
his estate representing the next of kin, has been substituted as claimant in lieu of 
Henry Lisle Wain, surviving executor of Jacob S. Wain, surviving assignee in bank- 
ruptcy of said Thomas Murgatroyd. 

IX. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the parties whom they claim to represent and have otherwise proved to the satis- 
faction of the court that the persons whom they represent are in fact the same persons 
who suffered loss during the seizure of the Delaware as set forth in the preceding 
findings. 

X. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France- concluded on the 30th of April, 1803; they were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants 
in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been 
assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of- 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

C. D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, eight hundred and fourteen 
dollars and sixty-two cents $814. 62 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
seven hundred and seventy-one dollars and forty-seven. cent's 771. 47 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, two thousand one 
hundred and two dollars and seventy-seven cents 2, 102. 77 

Wm. D. Squires, administrator Henry Pratt, surviving partner of Pratt & 

Ivintzing, one hundred and ninety-one dollars and sixty-five cents 191. 65 

J. Bayard Henry, administrator of xindrew Pettit, surviving partner of Pettit 

& Bayard, one hundred and eighty-two dollars and ten cents 182. 10 

Geo. W. Guthrie, administrator of Alexander Murray, surviving partner of 
Miller & Murray, one hundred and eighty-two dollars and ten cents 182. 10 

J. Bayard Henry, administrator Geo. Rundle and Thos. Leech, two hundred 

and twenty-two dollars and thirty-three cents 222. 33 

Francis A. Lewis, administrator of John Miller, jr., one hundred and eighty- 
two dollars and ten cents 182. 10 

J. Albert Smyth, administrator of Jacob Baker, surviving partner of Baker & 

Comegys, one hundred and eighty-two dollars and ten cents 182. 10 

Craig D. Ritchie, administrator of Joseph Summerl, surviving partner of 
Summerl & Brown, one hundred and fifty-three dollars and forty-four 
cents 153.44 

Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, jr., surviving partner of Prager 

& Co. , one hundred and ninety-one dollars and sixty-four cents 191. 64 

William Brooke- Wain, administrator of Jesse Wain, one hundred and eighty- 
two dollars and nine cents 182. 09 

Sara Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, one hundred and 
eighty-two dollars and nine cents 182. 09 

D. Fitzhugh Savage, administrator of John Savage, one hundred and forty- 
one dollars and eighty-six cents 141. 86 

Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, surviving partner of 
Thomas & John Clifford, one hundred and fifty-three dollars and forty-four 
cents 153. 44 

The Pennsylvania Company for Insurance on Lives, etc.; administrator of 
Thomas M. Willing, surviving partner of Willing & Francis, two hundred 
and eighty-three dollars and seventy cents 283. 70 






ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 655 

Robert W. Smith, administrator of Robert Smith, surviving partner of Robert 
Smith & Co. , one hundred and eighty-two dollars and nine cents $182. 09 

John Lyman Cox and Howard Wurts Page, administrators of James Cox, one 

hundred and twenty dollars and seventy-two cents 120. 72 

Henry Pettit, administrator of Charles Pettit, one hundred and eleven dol- 
lars and seventeen cents 111. 17 

George Harrison Fisher, administrator of Jacob Ridgway, ninety-two dollars 
and seven rents 9". 07 

George McCall, administrator of William McMurtrie, ninety-two dollars and 

seven cents 92. 07 

The city of Philadelphia, administrator of Stephen Girard, twenty-eight 

dollars and sixty-five cents 28. 65 

Amounting in all to six thousand and seven hundred and forty-six dollars and 
twenty-seven cents ($6,746.27). 

By the Court. 
Filed June 13 . 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 22d day of June, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] Archibald Hopkins, 

Chief Cleric Court of Claims. 

BRIG LITTLE JOHN BUTLER. 

Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. L., 2S3; vol. 1, Supp. Rev. 

Stat., 2d ed., 471) . Vessel, brig Little John Butler, James Smith, jr., master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

159. Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix of Richard S. Hallett, v. The United 

States. 
403. Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, v. The United States. 
440. William Nifflin, administrator of Ebenezer Large, v. The United States. 
866. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v.' 
The United States. 

1156. James Crawford Dawes, administrator of Abijah Dawes, v. The United States. 

1180. Benjamin N. Hartshorne and Charles N. Black, executors of Richard Harts- 
horne, v. The United States. 

1522. Richard C. McMurtrie et al, administrator of John Bohlen et al, v. The United 
States. 

1555. Joseph Ogden, as sole surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The 
United States. 

1679. Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, v. The United States. 

1801. Sarah E. Conover, administratrix of John Reed, v. The United States. 

2012. Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, v. The United States. 

2149. Joseph Ogden, as sole surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The 
United States. 

2536. Frederick W. Meeker, administrator of Samuel Meeker, v. The United States. 

2556. Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, v. The United States. 

2703. George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba, v. The United States. 

2714. George G. Meade, administrator of Thomas Ketland, v. The United States. 

3116. Frances R. Shaw, administrator of John C. Shaw, v. The United States. 

3128. Alexander C. M. Pennington, as one of the heirs of Joseph Ball, and represent- 
ing the other heirs and the administrator when appointed, v. The United 
States. 

4037. Benjamin M. Hartshorne and Charles N. Black, executors of Richard Harts- 
horne, v. The United States. 

4128. Julia Battersby, administratrix of John B. Desdoity, v. The United States. 

5059. O. L. Walneber, administrator of Israel Brown, v. The United States. 

5096. Thomas W. Ludlow, administrator of Thomas Ludlow, v. The United States. 

5282. John L. Rutgers, surviving executor, etc., of Nicholas C. Rutgers; Alfred 
Ogden, administrator of Charles L. Ogden, v. the United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 9th day of January, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, 
J. Bayard Henry, John C. Clark, and Evarts, Tracy & Sherman, and the United 
States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Depart- 
ment of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was AssistantjUtorney-General 
Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 



656 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
sam.3 with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Little John Butler, whereof James Smith, jr., was master, sailed on a 
commercial voyage from Philadelphia on. or about the 2d day of August, 1799, bound 
for Habaiia. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas 
on or about the 7th day of September, 1799, by the French privateer Bayonnaise, 
Captain Dubon, and taken into St. Johns, P. R., where said vessel and cargo were 
condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basse 
Torre in the island of Guadaloupe in the month of December, 1799, and the vessel 
was sold April 25, 1800, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 

First. That the certificate at the end of the sea letter was not signed by the public . 
officers of the marine. 

Second. That the role d' equipage was not in due form. 

Third. That the cargo was composed in part of goods the product of England. 

The said tribunal also found that the said privateer Bayonnaise "had no commission 
from the agents of the executive directory at the time when he made this capture, 
but merely a certificate or passport from the French delegate in the Danish island of 
St. Thomas, which, according to law, can not supply the want of a commission, and 
which, depriving the captors and owners of all beneficial interest in the said prize, 
of right, leaves it to the profit of the Republic." 

II. The Little John Butler was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 121§§ 
tons burthen, was built at Philadelphia in the year 1796, and was owned by Standish 
Forde and John Read, citizens of the United States, residing in Philadelphia, and 
composing the firm of Reed & Forde, whereof John Reed was the surviving partner. 

III. The cargo of the Little John Butler at the time of capture consisted of furniture, 
glassware, hardware, drugs, dry goods, and other merchandise, and was owned by 
William Davy and Francis Mechtler, citizens of the United States, and also by Simon 
Walker, a subject of Great Britain. 

IV. The losses to the different citizens of the United States by reason of said cap- 
ture and condemnation were as follows: 

After the condemnation the vessel was bought in at the judicial sale by her former 
owners for the sum of $2,000. 

Loss on vessel $2, 000. 00 

Demurrage to date of sale, April 25, 1800 ' 2, 806. 00 

Freight earnings 3, 333. 34 

Cargo owned by William Davy 24, 065. 21 

Premiums of insurance, etc. , paid by him 4, 853. 26 

Cargo owned by Francis Mechtler 3, 654. 10 

Premiums of insurance paid by him • 644. 84 

Total 41, 356. 75 

V. The loss to said firm of Reed & Forde, the owners of the vessel, was as follows: 

Loss on vessel $2, 000. 00 

Demurrage 2, 806. 00 

Freight earnings 3, 333. 34 

Total 8, 139. 34 

VI. July 25. 1799, said William Davy effected insurance on his portion of said cargo 
in the office of Wharton & Lewis, insurance brokers, in the city of Philadelphia, by a 
policy in the sum of $10,000 for the voyage from Philadelphia to Habana, paying 
therefor a premium of 20 per cent. 

The underwriters on the said policy who have appeared in this case by their legal 
representatives are as follows, viz : 

Joseph Ball $600 

Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons 1, 000 

Pettit & Bayard ' 600 

Miller & Murray 600 

Pratt & Kintzing 600 

Jesse Wain 1, 000 

Abijah Dawes 500 

Jones & Clarke '. 600 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 657 

Savage & Dugan $500 

Peter Blight 1, 000 

Robert Wain 600 

Phillips, Cramond & Co .1,000 

Thereafter the said Wharton & Lewis, as agents, duly paid the said assured the sum 
of $9,800 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy 
less the customary abatement of 2 per cent, in the office of Wharton & Lewis, the same 
being a loss to each of said underwriters of 98 per cent of the sum subscribed by him. 

Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons underwrote on said policy in the office of Wharton & 
Lewis in the sum of $1,000 and paid $980. In July, 1802, the said firm, which was 
composed of Thomas Murgatroyd, Samuel Murgatroyd, and Daniel Murgatroyd, were 
adjudicated bankrupt, and Jacob S. Wain became their assignee. Ed. Wain, admin- 
istrator of Henry Lisle Wain, surviving executor, etc., of Jacob S. Wain, has filed claim 
for this loss. Motion to substitute Sara Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murga 
troyd, as representing the next of kin in lieu of Ed. Wain, administrator of Henry Lisle 
Wain, surviving executor, etc., of Jacob S. Wain, assignee, has been made in this case. 

Pettit & Bayard. This firm was composed of Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard, 
said Andrew Pettit being the surviving partner of the firm. 

Miller & Murray. This firm was composed of William Miller and Alexander Murray. 
Said Alexander Murray was the surviving partner of the firm. 

Pratt & Kintzing. This firm was composed of Henry Pratt and Abraham Kintzing. 
Said Henry Pratt was the surviving partner of the firm. 

Jones & Clarke. This firm was composed of William Jones and Samuel Clarke. 
Said William Jones was the surviving partner of the firm. 

Savage & Dugan. This firm was composed of John Savage and Joseph Dugan. Said 
Joseph Dugan was the surviving partner of the firm. 

Phillips, Cramond & Co. This firm was composed of William Cramond (a citizen 
of the United States), Thomas Phillips, Nathaniel Phillips, John Phillips, John 
Phillips, jr., and George Phillips (subjects of Great Britain). Said Cramond resided 
in Philadelphia, where the business of the firm was carried on at the time this claim 
arose, and he continued to reside there until October 25, 1843, when he died. The 
other partners resided in Manchester, England. In 1801 the firm dissolved partnership. 
The partners residing in England were entitled to all outstanding firm credits. 

With the exception of the said firm of Phillips, Cramond & Co., all the underwriters 
above mentioned were citizens of the United States. 

July 27, 1799, said William Davy effected further insurance on his portion of said 
cargo in the office of John Delafield, insurance broker, m the city of New York, by a 
policy in the sum of $16,500, for the said voyage, paying therefor a premium of 10 per 
cent. 

The underwriters on the said policy who have appeared in this case by their legal 
representatives, and all of whom Were citizens of the United States, are as follows, viz: 

Rhinelander, Hartshorne & Co $2, 500 

John Shaw 1, 000 

Thomas Ludlow 500 

J. B. Church 2,000 

Benjamin Seaman & Co 500 

George Knox & John C. Shaw 500 

Henry Sadler & Co 500 

Jacob Sebor 500 

Hallett, Bowne & Co 500 

John Delafield 1 , 000 

John B . Desdoity 500 

George Scriba & William Henderson 500 

Thereafter the said John Delafield, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$16,170, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy, 
less the customary abatement of 2 per cent in the office of said Delafield, the same being 
a loss of 98 per cent to each of said underwriters of the sum subscribed by him. 

Rhinelander, Hartshorne & Co. This firm was composed of Frederick Rhinelander, 
William Rhinelander, Philip Rhinelander, Richard Hartshorne, William Kenyon, and 
Joseph Lindley. Said Richard Hartshorne was the survivor of the firm. 

Benjamin Seaman & Co. This firm was composed of Benjamin Seaman, Nicholas G. 
Rutgers, Herman G. Rutgers, Thomas C. Bibby, and Charles L. Ogden. Nicholas G. 
Rutgers was the surviving partner of the firm. 

Henry Sadler & Co. This firm was composed of Henry Sadler and William Craig. 
Said William Craig was the surviving partner of the firm. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1—42 -^ 



658 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Hallett, Bowne & Co. This firm was composed of Richard S. Hallett and Walter 
Bowne, and the legal representatives of both partners have appeared in this case. 

July 20, 1799, said Francis Nechtler effected insurance with the Insurance Company 
of North America in the sum of $6,000, to wit: $5,000 on his portion of the cargo and 
$1,000 on his commission as supercargo of said vessel, for the said voyage, paying 
therefor a premium of 12£ per cent. 

. Thereafter the said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $5,880, as and 
for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of the said policy, less the 
customary abatement of 2 per cent in said office. 

The value of the portion of the cargo owned by said Francis Nechtler, exclusive of 
premium of insurance, was $3,654.10. ±ie was therefore over insured in the sum of 
$1,345.90 on that portion of the said policy. No claim has been filed on his behalf. 

VII. The defendants have filed a counterclaim against Robert Wain in the sum of 
$71,480.49, alleging that he was indebted to the United States in that sum on certain 
unpaid custom-house bonds either as principal or surety, said bonds being dated 1818, 
1819. The court finds that such sum of $71,480.49 became due upon said bonds and 
no evidence has been produced to establish payment thereof. 

VIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provi- 
sions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States : 

Sarah E. Conover, administratrix of John Reed, surviving partner of Reed 
& Forde, eight thousand one hundred and thirtv-nine dollars and thirty - 
four cents $8, 139. 34 

Samuel A. Custer, administrator of Joseph Ball, five hundred and eighty- 
eight dollars 588. 00 

Sarah Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, for and on behalf 
of the firm of Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons, nine hundred and eighty 
dollars 980. 00 

Henry Pettit, administrator of Andrew Pettit, surviving partner of Pettit 

& Bayard, five hundred and eighty-eight dollars 588. 00 

William D. Squires, administrator of Henry Pratt, surviving partner of 

Pratt & Kintzing, five hundred and eighty-eight dollars 588. 00 

Francis Brooke Rawle, administrator of Jesse Wain, nine hundred and 

eighty dollars 980. 00 

James Crawford Dawes, administrator of Abijah Dawes, four hundred and 

ninety dollars 490. 00 

Cyrus T. Smith, administrator of William Jones, surviving partner of 
Jones & Clarke, five hundred and eighty-eight dollars 588. 00 

Augustus J. Pleasanton, administrator of Joseph Dugan, surviving partner 
of Savage & Dugan, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Francis A. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, nine hundred and eighty 
dollars 980. 00 

Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, nine hundred and 
eighty dollars 980. 00 

Benjamin M. Hartshorne and Charles N. Black, executors of Richard 
Hartshorne, surviving partner of Rhinelander, Hartshorne & Co., two 
thousand four hundred and fifty dollars 2, 450. 00 

John A. Foley, administrator of John Shaw, nine hundred and eight y 

dollars 1 980. 00 

George W. Guthrie, administrator of Alexander Murray, surviving partner 
of Miller & Murray, five hundred and eighty-eight dollars 588. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 659 

Thomas W. Ludlow, administrator of Thomas Ludlow, four hundred and 
ninety dollars $490. 00 

Walter S. Church, administrator of John B. Church, one thousand nine 

hundred and sixty dollars 1, 960. 00 

John L. Rutgers, surviving executor of Nicholas G. Rutgers, surviving 

partner of Benjamin Seaman & Co., four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Frances R. Shaw, administratrix of John C. Shaw, for and on behalf of the 

firm of George Knox and John C. Shaw, four hundred and ninety dollars. 490. 00 

Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, surviving partner of 

Henry Sadler & Co. , four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Elijah K. Hubbard, administrator of Jacob Sebor, four hundred and ninety 
dollars 490. 00 

Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, two hundred and forty- 
five dollars 245. 00 

Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix of Richard S. Hallett, two hun- 
dred and forty-five dollars 245. 00 

Julia Battersby, administratrix of John B. Desdoity, four hundred and 

ninety dollars ? 490. 00 

George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba, for and on behalf of the 
firm of George Scriba & William Henderson, four hundred and ninety 
dollars 490. 00 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
three thousand six hundred and fifty-four dollars and ten cents 3, 654. 10 

Amounting in all to twenty-eight thousand nine hundred and forty- 
three dollars and forty-four cents 28, 943. 44 

No award is made in favor of Ann Wain Ryerss, administratrix of Robert Wain; 
eaid Wain being indebted to the United States in a sum exceeding the amount of his 
losses, as hereinbefore set forth. 

No award is made in favor of Henry G. Clay, administrator of William Cramond, he, 
in effect, representing subjects of Great Britain. 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America are not 
entitled to recover for insurance paid Francis Mechtler on his commission as supercargo. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 14, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 18th day of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG SALLY. 

(Court of Claims. French spoliations, No. 1138. (Decided May 21, 1906.) Brig Sally, Eden Wads- 
worth, master. James F. Adams, administrator of Seth Adams, v. The United States. Charles E. 
Cotting, administrator of Joshua Loring, v. The United States.] 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 17th day of April, 1906. The 
claimants were represented by George A. and William B. King, with whom was L. C. 
Black and William T. S. Curtis; and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- 
General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., 
with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Sally, Eden Wadsworth, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 11th 
day of May, 1797, from Boston, bound for Hamburg, Germany. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer L' Hydra 
(The Hydra), captain, Etienne Demoliere, and conducted into the Isle of Re, France. 
The following proseedings were then had: 

July 23, 1797, the tribunal of commerce of Saint Martin, Isle of Re, in an elaborate 
decree gave the following judgment: 

"We have judged the capture made by the corsair, The Hydra, Capt. Etienne Demo- 
liere, of the ship Sally, Capt. Eden Wadsworth, and her cargo to be null and illegal, 



660 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

as being both neutral property, in consequence whereof we order the release of the 
said ship Sally, her rigging, apparel, appurtenances, and dependencies in the same 
state as they were at the time of capture of the ship." 

Further provisions were made, including a decree against the owners of the privateer 
for all expenses, damages, interest, and costs. 

November 28, 1797, the civil tribunal of the first instance of the Department of the 
Lower Charente rendered a decree on appeal, reversing the judgment of the tribunal 
of commerce on the technical ground that two supplementary judges had sat with the 
regular judges, and therefore remanded the cause to the tribunal from whence it came, 
with the direction, however, that it should be heard before different judges than those 
who had first taken cognizance of it. 

The commercial tribunal of St. Martin having refused to judge anew the cause, the 
matter was referred to the tribunal of cassation. This tribunal annulled both judg- 
ments and sent the cause to be tried in the first instance before the commercial tribunal 
of La Rochelle. 

May 26, 1798, the tribunal of commerce of La Rochelle rendered a decree condemn- 
ing the vessel and cargo. 

July 19, 1798, this decree was affirmed by the civil tribunal of the first instance of 
the Department of the Lower Charente on the ground of a want of a role d 'equipage, 
this becoming final, whereby said vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners. 

II. The Sally was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 104^4 tons burden, 
belonging to the port of Boston, Mass., and was owned by the firm of Adams & Loring, 

• consisting of Seth Adams and Joseph Loring, jr., both citizens of the United States, 
and by Joshua Loring. Adams and Loring owned one-half of said vessel and Joshua 
Loring owned the other half. 

III. The cargo of the Sally at the time of capture consisted of pearlashes, potashes, 
coffee, horn tips, rum, rice, staves, and tobacco, and was owned by said Adams & 
Loring. 

IV. Seth Adams and Joseph Loring, jr., dissolved their copartnership after the loss 
of the Sally and her cargo, as hereinbefore set forth, and upon a division of the assets 
of the firm all claims on account of French spoliations became, by the terms of the 
settlement among the partners, the sole individual property of said Seth Adams. 

V. The losses of Seth Adams by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Sally 
and her cargo were as follows: 

One-half value of vessel $2, 800. 00 

One-half freight earnings .• 706. 46 

Value of cargo 14, 118. 00 

Total 17, 624. 46 

VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates 
of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of 
the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same per- 
sons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Sally, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty with Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were 
not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United 
States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS Of' LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation 
were illegal and that the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon 
the French Republic prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
French Republic and the United States concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United 
States in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 
against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from 
the United States: 

James F. Adams, administrator of Seth Adams, seventeen thousand six hundred 
and twenty-four dollars and forty-six cents ($17,624.46). 

No award is made in favor of the legal representatives of Joshua Loring, his claim 
not having been presented to the court within two years from the passage of the act of 
January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. L., 283). 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 661 



Howry, J., delivered the opinion of the court: 

French spoliation of this country's commercial interest and interference with 
our seafaring people have never been shown to be more flagrantly unjustifiable 
than under the circumstances disclosed by this record. Indeed, a French civil 
tribunal of the first instance reversed the first decree condemning the vessel, on 
a technical ground, it is true, but for reasons which show the unlawful character 
of the prize court entering the decree of condemnation. Then a tribunal in cassation 
annulled everything done by both courts and sent the cause to a tribunal of commerce 
at La Rochelle. \a hile the decree of the last court again condemned the vessel, the 
ground stated was not valid. The voyage was lawful and the condemnation illegal. 

The questions in the case now arise on the claims made in this court under the act 
of January 20, 1885 (23 Sta*. L., 283). The vessel was registered in the names of Seth 
Adams, Joshua Loring, and Joseph Loring, jr., of Boston. It is alleged in the original 
complaint that the vessel and cargo were owned by the firm of Adams & Loring, com- 
posed of the three persons above named, and surviving ownership is seated to be in 
Adams for the three interests, because upon the division of the assets of said firm all 
claims on account of French spoliations became the individual property of Adams. 
An agreement found in the record of the case of the brig John, Scott, master, is relied 
upon as establishing such partnership. 

In that case the allegation of the complaint is that Adams and Joseph Loring, 
jr., composed said firm, and in the case at bar the allegation is made that the firm 
was composed of Adams and the two Lorings. The two statements are inconsistent, 
and one of them is assuredly erroneous. The agreement relied on does not prove the 
partnership of the three parties. We accept the proof as most conclusive that the 
partnership was between Adams and Loring, jr., only. This excludes Loring the 
elder. 

The register of this vessel shows that three persons were the owners, but does not 
disclose the proportion of ownership. But an inspection of the register of The John 
shows that the only parties in ownership of that vessel were Seth Adams and Joseph 
Loring, jr. There is no proof here, as stated, that Joshua Loring was ever a member 
of the firm. If so, he must have dropped out of the partnership. That does not 
concern us, however, as to when he ceased to be a member. It does concern the 
court to notice that in the subsequent proceedings for the settling of the partnership 
interests in the case of The John the partnership there appears to have existed exclu- 
sively between Seth Adams and Joseph Loring, jr. The record title must control in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary. (The Ganges, 31 C. Cls. R., 175.) 

If Joshua Loring had an interest as an individual his legal representatives can not 
now assert that interest because the claim as to him was not presented within the two 
years' jurisdictional period fixed by the act of Congress. 

Rule 105 (now Rule 26) provides for parties having a common interest to unite in one 
petition for the recovery of their respective claims and for all to .be heard together. It is 
contended that this rule relates to underwriters only and does not apply to vessel owners. 
Assuming it to be true that the rule does apply to vessel owners, the enforcement of 
the' rule to the extent of now permitting the individual interest left out to be admitted 
after the period of limitation for interested parties to appear would abrogate the statute. 
Rules of the court can no more supersede the law than army regulations can provide 
for things inconsistent with an act of Congress. Properly interpreted, however, the 
rule under notice does not attempt to abrogate the statute, but merely prescribes a 
convenient method for claimants having a common interest to come in. It is too late 
for the legal representatives of Joshua Loring to claim anything under the statute, or 
rule, either, because his interest is an adverse interest and not a common interest. 

This phase of the case disposed of, the next question is the amount of the interest 
which the surviving member of the firm as settling partner should have reported grow- 
ing out of the ownership of the vessel. Defendants contend that in the absence of 
evidence as to the particular proportions which the vessel and cargo are shown to 
have been owned the court must presume that such ownership is in equal parts. That 
is to say, if the said firm was composed of Adams and the younger Loring and that 
firm had ownership interests in the vessel with the elder Loring as an individual, 
with no proof of the proportions in which the vessel happened to be owned, the pre- 
sumption must be carried into the report that the firm of Adams & Loring, jr., owned 
one-half of the vessel and Loring, sr., owned the other half. Claimants contend that 
the firm of Adams & Loring owned two-thirds of the vessel. 

We can not adopt the contention of the claimants on this point. In the absence 
of anything to show that Joshua Loring was recognized as one-third owner, the court 



662 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

must presume, in view of all the testimony relating to the property rights of the surviv- 
ing partner, that the register of the vessel establishes the title to be in the firm of Adams 
& Loring, jr., as to one-half and in Joshua Loring as to the other half. 

The title to a vessel, unless shown to be otherwise, is that of tenancy in common. 
Two men shown to be in partnership of the whole cargo, but whose names appear on 
the register of the vessel (which carries the cargo) with a third person, must prove 
that they own the vessel as individuals and not as a firm to entitle the two persons 
to claim one-third each of the ownership of the vessel. The interest of each owner 
is held in severalty. In view of the record in the case of The John, Scott (supra), where 
the firm of Adams & Loring owned one-third, the firm of Hall & Co. owned one-third, 
and James Scott, jr., owned one-third, the presumption is here that this firm of Adams 
& Loring was a single body, representing a single interest, and they are accordingly 
held to be owners of one-half of the vessel and entitled to be paid for that one-half 
interest. 

There is another question left to be noticed. Claimants contend that freight should 
be paid on the gross tonnage of the vessel. The proof shows the amount of cargo 
actually carried, which is less than the gross tonnage. Two-thirds freight allowance 
on tonnage is an arbitrary rule adopted from the rule in commercial cities in the 
adjustment of average losses. This court has said, in discussing the claims for gross 
freight, that it must not be understood as intending any application of this principle 
to a vessel proceeding under a mere "expectancy" of finding cargo at her first port 
of call. (Schooner John, 22 C. Cls. R., 408, 463.) With proof showing the amount 
of cargo carried, we are of opinion that the actual freight must be computed on the 
amount carried and not on the vessel's tonnage. The findings show the result to be 
an allowance to claimants whose proof entitles them to recover of one-half the value 
of the freight earnings, which amount to $706.46. The value of the cargo is fixed by 
the findings at $14,118 and of the one-half interest in the vessel at $2,800, in favor 
of the legal representatives of Adams, the surviving partner of the firm of Adams & 
Loring. 

The findings of the court and its conclusions will be reported to Congress, together 
with a copy of this opinion. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 21, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 4th day of December, 1906. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG AURORA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Brig Aurora, Jaines Phillips, jr., master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimants. 

114. John M. Clinch, administrator of Perez Morton. 

269. Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager. 

316. Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse. 

482. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. 

1073. A. Louis Eakin, administrator of Chandler Price. 

1169. Francis A. Lewis et al., administrators of John Miller, jr., et al. 

1554. Joseph Ogden, executor of Jane Ann Ferrers. 

1681. Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig. 

2146. Joseph Ogden, executor of Jane Ann Ferrers. 

2540. Frederick W. Meeker, administrator of Samuel Meeker. 

2578. Henry R. Sadler, administrator of Henry Sadler. 

2698. George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba. 

5052. O. L. Wullweber, administrator of Israel Brown. 

5278. John L. Rutgers, executor of Nicholas G. Rutgers. 

5286. The Union Trust Company of New York, administrator of William Ogden. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were heard before the Court of Claims on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Wm. T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Thomas Stokese, esqs., and the United States, the defendants, by the Attorney- 
General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., 
with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 663 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments of the counsel and 
considering the same, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Aurora, James Phillips, jr., master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or 
about May 16, 1799, from Philadelphia, bound for San Juan, P. R. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas June 7, 1799, by the French 
privateer La Victoire, taken into San Juan, P. R., and condemned as good prize on 
August 2, 1799, by the tribunal of commerce, sitting at Basse Terre, Guadeloupe. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were: 

That the vessel had no role d' equipage. 

That among the cargo were goods of English manufacture. 

II. The Aurora was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 90 T , : V tons, was 
built at Dighton, Mass., in 1798, and was owned by James Phillips, an American 
citizen. 

III. The cargo of the Aurora consisted of brany, flour, ham, sausages, pork, salt, 
lard, butter, cheese, almonds, linen, snuff, candles, glassware, jewelry, earthenware, 
furniture, drugs, etc., and was owned by Felix Imbert, an American citizen. The 
value of the cargo, exclusive of premiums of insurance, was $16,037. 

IV. The loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Aurora was as 
follows: 

Value o+" vessel (to amount of insurance paid) $4, 410. 00 

Value of cargo 16, 037. 00 

> Amounting in all to 20, 447. 00 

Less insurance received 20, 447. 00 

V. May 18, 1799, James Phillips effected through the office of Hoyt & Tom, in- 
surance on the vessel in the amount of $4,500, paying therefor a premium of 17£ per 
cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, who, as far as they 
appear in court are citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his 
name, viz: 

Henry Sadler & Co $500 

William Ogden 500 

Benjamin Seaman & Co 500 

John Juhel & Co 1, 000 

Paschal N. Smith 250 

George Scriba & Wm. Henderson 1, 000 

Frederick De Peyster & Co 500 

Hector Scott 250 

Thereafter Hoyt & Tom, as agents, duly paid the said insured the sum of $4,410, 
being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. 

May 14, 1799, Felix Imbert effected through the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, 
insurance on the cargo in the amount of $11,720 paying therefor a premium of 20 
per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, who, as far as 
they appear in court, are citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite 
his name, viz: 

John Savage $800 

Jones & Clarke 1, 000 

John Miller, jr 1, 000 

Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons 1, 000 

Prager & Co 1, 000 

Pratt & Kintzing 1, 000 

Peter Blight 1,000 

Morgan & Price 1, 000 

Jesse Wain 1, 000 

Samuel Meeker 800 

Phillips, Carmmond & Co 400 

Ambrose Vasse 1, 000 

Summerl & Brown 720 

Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, duly paid the said insured the sum of 
$11,485.60, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. 

May 15, 1799, Felix Imbert effected in the office of the Insurance Company of the 
State of Pennsylvania insurance on the cargo in the amount of $10,000, paying therefor 
a premium of 25 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company duly paid the said 
insured the sum of $9,800, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. 



664 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VI. The cargo of the Aurora was overinsured in the sum of $5,683, the true value of 
the same being $16,037, on which there was an insurance of §21,720. The insurers are 
therefore entitled to a recovery of 73.835 per cent on the amount of their underwritings, 
respectively. 

VII. The firm of Henry Sadler & Co. was composed solely of Henry Sadler and 
William Craig. Said William Craig was the surviver of said firm. 

The firm of Benjamin Seaman & Co. was composed solely of Benjamin Seaman, 
Nicholas G. Rutgers, Charles L. Ogden, Herman G. Rutgers, and Thomas Bibby. 
Said Nicholas G. Rutgers was the survivor of said firm. 

The firm of George Scriba and William Henderson was composed solely of the parties 
named. Said George Scriba was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Jones & Clarke was composed solely of William Jones and Samuel Clarke. 
Said William Jones was the survivor of said firm. 

The firm of Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons was composed solely of Thomas Murgatroyd, 
Samuel Murgatroyd, and Daniel Murgatroyd. Said Thomas Murgatroyd was the sur- 
vivor of the firm. 

The firm of Pragers & Co. was composed solely of Mark Prager, sr., Michael Prager, 
and Mark Prager, jr. Michael Prager died in 1793, and the finn was continued by 
Mark Prager, sr., and Mark Prager, jr.. until May, 1797. when Mark Prager, jr., with- 
drew, and Mark Prager, jr., jointly with his brother John Prager, took all the concerns 
of the house and continued in business under the same firm name of Pragers & Co. 

The firm of Pratt & Kintzing was composed solely of Henry Pratt and Abraham 
Kintzing. Said Henry Pratt was the survivor of said firm. 

The firm of Morgan & Price was composed solely of Benjamin Morgan and Chandler 
Price. Said Chandler Price was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of Philips, Crammond & Co. was composed solely of William Crammond, a 
citizen of the United States, and Thomas Philips. Nathaniel Philips, John Philips, 
John Philips, jr., Robert Philips, and George Philips, subjects of Great Britain. It 
does not appear who was the survivor of said firm. No award is made herein on behalf 
of said firm. 

The firm of Summerl & Brown was composed solely of Joseph Summerl and Isaac 
Brown. Said Joseph Summerl was the survivor of said firm. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Aurora as set forth in 
the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that the seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800: that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
suras from the United States: 

Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, surviving partner of Henry 

Sadler & Co., four hundred and ninety dollars $490. 00 

George F. Scriba. administrator of George Scriba, surviving partner of the 
firm of Geoige Scriba and William Henderson, nine hundred and eighty 
dollars 980. 00 

John L. Rutgers), surviving executor of Nicholas G. Rutgers, surviving 
partner of the firm of Benjamin Seaman & Co., four hundred and ninety 
dollars 490. 00 

Union Trust Company of New York, administrator of William Ogden, four 

hundred and ninety dollars >. 490. 00 

D. Fitzhugh Savage, administrator of John Savage, five hundred and 
ninety dollars and sixty-eight cents 590. 68 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAI N CLAIMS. 665 

Charlotte F. Smith, administratrix of William Jones, surviving partner of 
Jones & Clark, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-six 

. cents ; $738. 36 

Francis D. Lewis, administrator of John Miller, jr., seven hundred and 
thirty-eight dollars and thirty-six cents 738. 36 

Sarah Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, surviving partner of 
Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and 
thirty-six cents 738. 36 

Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, jr., surviving partner of 
Pragers & Co., seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five 
cents 738. 35 

William D. Squires, administrator of Henry Pratt, surviving partner of 
Pratt & Kintzing, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five 
cents 738. 35 

Francis D. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, seven hundred and thirty 

eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 

A. Louis Eakm, administrator of Chandler Price, surviving partner of 
Morgan & Price, seven hundred and thirty-tight dollars and thirty-five 
cents : 738. 35 

William Brooke-Rawle, administrator of Jesse Wain, seven hundred and 

thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 

Frederick W. Meeker, administrator of Samuel Meeker, five hundred and 
ninety dollars and sixty-eight cents 590. 68 

Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, seven hundred and 

thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 

Craig D. Ritchie, administrator of Joseph Summer!, surviving partner of 
Summer] & Brown, five hundred and thirty-one dollars and sixty-two 
cents : 531. 62 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, seven thousand 

three hundred and eighty-three dollars and fifty-two cents 7, 383. 52 

Amounting in all to eighteen thousand one hundred and ninety-one 

dollars and sixty-eight cents 18. 191. 68 

John M. Clinch, administrator of Perez Morton, and Joseph Ogden, executor of Jane 
Ann Ferrers, have proved no valid claims. 

Mary Vanuxem, administratrix of James Vanuxem, who insured the commissions of 
the supercargo herein, has proved no valid claim. 

No persons claiming to represent John Juhel & Co., Paschal N. Smith, Frederick de 
Peyster & Co., or Hector Scott, who were underwriters on a policy of insurance herein, 
have appeared in this court. 

The owners of vessel, cargo, and freight are n>-t in court. 

By the Court. 
' Filed April 8, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 26th day of November, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP TOWNSEND. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283; vol. 1, Supp. Rev. 
Stat. 2d ed., 471. Decided February 18, 1907. Vessel sloop Townsend, Daniel Campbell, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

3709. William O. McCobb, administrator of the estates of William McCobb and Jo- 
seph Campbell, v. The United States, and 
Jennie E. McFarland, administratrix of the estate of Ephraim McFarland, v. 
The United States. 

3659. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, v. The 
United States. 

3658. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, v. The 
United States. 

3058. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of the estate of Benjamin Cobb, v. The 
United States. 

3739. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of the estate of Francis Green, v. The 

. . United States. 

970. William Ropes Trask, administrator of the estate of Thomas Amory, v. The 
United States. . 



666 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 



These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 23d day of October, 1906. 

The claimants were represented by George A. and William B. King, and Curtis & 
Pickett, and the United States, defendants by the Attorney- General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice. John W. Trainer, esq. . with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments, and considering 
the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. 

The sloop Toivnsend Daniel Campbell, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
August 28 1798 from Boothbay, Massachusetts (now Maine), bound for the English 
island of Antigua. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the 
high seas about the 1st of October, 1798, by the French privateer Le Pelletier and 
carried to the island of Guadaloupe. and her master was thrown into prison, with the 
loss of all his sea clothes, books and papers, where he remained for a period of about 
three months. He was examined in preparatory on the 10th day of October, 1798, 
while in prison, in which it was shown that the cargo consisted of boards, staves, 
shingles, and codfish. 

She was there condemned by the Tribunal of Commerce and Prizes, sitting at 
Basseterre on said island, and condemned on the ground of a want of a rdle d'equipage, 
and an invoice of the cargo, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 

II. 

The Townsend was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of the burthen of 
97/^ tons, and was owned by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the 
United States: 

Joseph Campbell Three-eighths. 

William McCobb ,. Three-eighths. 

Ephraim McFarland One-quarter. 

III. 

The cargo of the Townsend at the time of capture consisted of lumber, shingles, 
staves, and fish, and was owned by the following persons, to wit: 

Joseph Campbell One-third. 

William McCobb One-third. 

Ephraim McFarland One-third. 

IV. 

The loss to the Owners of the vessel and cargo was as follows: 

Value of the vessel $3, 400. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 617. 37 

Value of the cargo 688. 81 

5, 706. 18 
Deduct insurance received 2, 000. 00 

Total 3, 706. 18 

The loss to Joseph Campbell was as follows: 

Three-eighths value of vessel _ $1, 275. 00 

Three-eighths value of freight earnings 606. 51 

One-third value of cargo 229. 60 

2, 111. 11 
Deduct insurance received 1, 000. 00 

Net loss : ... 1,111.11 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 667 

The loss to Ephraim McFarland was as follows: 

One-fourth value of vessel §850. 00 

One-fourth value of freight earnings 404. 35 

One-third value of cargo 229. 61 

1, 483. 96 
Deduct insurance received 1, 000. 00 

Net loss 483. 96 

The loss to William McCobb was as follows: 

Three-eighths value of vessel $1, 275. 00 

Three-eighths value of freight earnings 606. 51 

One-third value of cargo 229. 60 

Net loss 2, 111. 11 

VI. 

December 11, 1798, Joseph Campbell effected in the office of Joseph Taylor insurance 
on the vessel and cargo to the amount of $1,000 (one-half on each), paying therefor a 
premium of 60 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all 
of whom were citizens of the United States, to wit: 



Thomas Amory 

Francis Green 500- 

Thereafter the said Joseph Taylor duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,000, being 
in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, being a loss to said underwriters of the 
amount subscribed by them, respectively. 

VII. 

December 21, 1798, Ephraim McFarland effected in the office of Joseph Taylor insur- 
ance on the vessel and cargo to the amount of $1,000 (one-half on each), paying there- 
for a premium of 60 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, 
all of whom were citizens of the United States, to wit: 

John C. Jones $500 

Benjamin Cobb, jr 50O 

Thereafter the said Joseph Taylor duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,000,. 
being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, being a loss to said underwriters 
of the amount subscribed by them, respectively. 

All of the above insurance was effected after the date of the condemnation. 

VIII. 

The claimants herein have produced letters upon the estates of their decedents, and 
have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the parties they represent 
are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemna- 
tion of the sloop Townsend as aforesaid. 

IX. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims- 
growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provi- 
sions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d day 
of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon 
the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 



668 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

States and the French Republic, concluded cm the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the reliquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

William 0. McCobb, administrator of the estate of William McCobb, two 
thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and eleven cents $2, 111. 11 

William O. McCobb, administrator of the estate of Joseph Campbell, one 

thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and eleven cents 1, 111. 11 

Jennie E. McFarland, administratrix of the estate of Ephraim McFarland. 

four hundred and eighty-three dollars and ninety-six cents 483. 96 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of the estate of Benjamin Cobb, jr., 
five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Archibald M. Howe, administrator of the estate of Francis Green, five 

hundred dollars 500. 00 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of the estate of Thomas Amory, five 

hundred dollars 500. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of the estate of John C. Jones, five hun- 
dred dollars '. 500. 00 



5, 706. 18 
Amounting in all to five thousand seven hundred and six and T l - 5 % dollars. 



Atkinson, J., delivered the opinion of the court: 
. The sloop Townsend, a small New England vessel, built and registered in the State 
of Maine, sailed from the State of Massachusetts August 28, 1798, bound for the Brit- 
ish island of Antigua. Her cargo consisted of lumber, shingles, staves, and fish. 
The vessel was owned by three American citizens of the State of Maine, who also were 
the owners of the cargo. In the early part of October, 1798, while on her outward 
voyage to Antigua, she was captured by the French privateer lie Pellitier, and was 
conveyed to Guadeloupe, arriving October 10 of that year, when vessel and cargo 
were condemned "as good prize"' by a French court sitting at said place, for the 
reasons that she had not on board "a role d 1 equipage and invoice of cargo," notwith- 
standing the fact that the evidence showed (translations by the interpreter of the 
French court) that she' carried the following papers: 

"No. 1. Her register, showing that Joseph Campbell, from Boothbay, in the State of 
Massachusetts, mariner, together with William McCobb, esquire, and Ephraim Mc- 
Farland, mariner, both from Boothbay, in said State, are the owners. Dated at the 
port of Wiscasset, October 11th, 1797. 

"No. 2. Her sea letter from the port of Boothbay for Antigua, with a cargo of boards, 
staves, shingles, and codfish. Dated August 28, 1798. 

"No. 3. Agreement of the captain with his crew for Antigua. 

"No. 4. His clearance from the customs-house in Wiscasset for Antigua, with a cargo 
of sixty thousand feet of boards, four thousand staves, sixty-two thousand shingles, 
thirty quintals codfish. 

"No. 5. Instructions from the owners to the captain for Antigua or any other port 
not prohibited by the laws of the United States, etc. 

"No. 6. A printed notice concerning the action of masters of American vessels in 
case of seizure or detention of their men by any foreign power." 

When the sloop arrived at Guadeloupe, the master, after filing a protest, was im- 
prisoned, remaining therein for the period of about three months. While in prison he 
was examined on preparatory interrogatories, and among other things testified that 
the vessel and cargo were owned by three American citizens, viz, Joseph Campbell, William 
McCobb, and Ephraim McFarland; that the vessel cleared from Wiscasset, Massa- 
chusetts, U. S. A., bound for Antigua, and that the cargo consisted of boards, staves, 
shingles, and thirty quintals of codfish, a part of the latter being the property of the 
crew. Shortly after his return to the United States he appeared before a notary public 
and made a sworn protest against the condemnation of the vessel and cargo by the 
French court. 

Three points were raised by counsel for the defendants in the trial of this case against 
any allowance by the court in favor of the claimants, to wit: 

1. The decree of condemnation alleges the absence of register as a ground of seizure. 

2. There was no invoice on board, and consequently there can be no recovery for the 
cargo. 

3. There can be no recovery for insurance, for the reason that the condemnation 
took place prior to the payment of the premiums for said insurance. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 669 

We do not consider the first objection well founded, because we fail to find in the 
decree of condemnation any other reason assigned for such action (except a mere quo- 
tation from the arrete of the agent of the executive directory in the West Indies) than 
the absence among the ship's papers of a rdle d'equipage and an invoice of the cargo. 
The translations made by the French interpreter of the court show conclusively that 
the papers of the vessel were regular; that she -carried everthing, including register, 
required by the French decree, except a manifest and a role d' equipage; that American 
ownership of vessel and cargo were conclusively shown; and further, that the cargo was 
not contraband of war. 

The absence of a rdle rf' equipage as evidence of the neutrality of a vessel at sea is no 
longer a debatable question, because it has long ago been settled by this and other 
courts, including those of France, that the possession of such document in not necessary 
to establish the neutrality of a vessel on the high seas. (Schooner Sallie, 21 C. Cls. 
R., 340, 400, and schooner Industry, 22 C. Cls. R., 1, 49.) 

From what we have said above we are clearly of the opinion that the condemnation 
of the sloop was illegal; and we are also of the opinion that the condemnation of the 
cargo, on account of the absence of an invoice of cargo or manifest, was likewise illegal. 
The evidence before the prize court was both documentary and by depositions. The 
register, the sea letter, the agreement of the captain with his crew for Antigua, the 
clearance from the customs-house at Wiscasset, together with the instructions of the 
owners and freighters of the vessel to the captain thereof prior to sailing, all which were 
verified by the interpreter at the trial of the case before the prize court at Guadeloupe, 
clearly show that the owners of the vessel were the owners of the cargo, and that they 
were all American citizens. This, it seems to our minds, was sufficient evidence to 
establish the neutral ownership of the cargo, especially in view of the fact that the 
cargo itself showed that it was innocent commercial property, and was consequently not 
contraband of war. 

The French council of prizes, January 18, 1801, in passing upon the absence of one 
or more papers of a ship at a trial by a prize court, decided that — 

"The judgment is founded in justice. It is based upon the provisions of the regu- 
lation of 1778. Its conclusions can not but be approved by the council, which has 
neither seen nor been able to see in the instruction of the owner to the captain anything 
but a ship's paper as authentic, as legal, as conclusive of neutrality, as the laws, justice, 
and reason require. 

"The denomination of the paper does not destroy its contents. It is not such or 
such a ship's paper under such or such denomination that the law requires, but proof 
of neutrality. That of the cargo is clear, since the paper in question combines all the 
characters of the papers enumerated by the law. 

' ' The manifest is not embraced according to the ordinances and regulations in the 
enumeration by name of ship's papers, but it is impliedly comprised in the general 
expression of the law ' and other papers establishing neutrality ; ' any other paper estab- 
lishing this proof fulfills the letter, the spirit, and the purpose of the law. That is so 
true that the council has received as a bill of lading a general manifest in a case on the 
report of Citizen La Coste. 

"If the manifest, of which the law does not speak, is impliedly comprised in the 
collective expression 'and other papers,' it follows necessarily that the instruction of 
the owner to the captain should be ranged in the class of other papers, since it comprises 
everything which the charter party, the invoice, the bill of lading, and the manifest 
could regularly import." (1 Pistoye & Duverdy, 438, 439.) 

This court decided in the case of the schooner Hazard (39 C. Cls., 376) that the protest 
of the master of a vessel as to its neutrality should have great weight as over against the 
absence of some of the papers of a vessel in condemnation proceedings. The opinion 
says» 

"We know now from the subsequent protest of the master that the cargo of this 
vessel was neutral. The careful representative of the Government concedes this 
while properly contending that the proceedings resulting in condemnation must not 
be determined by subsequent developments, but by the proof in hand at the time. 
Neutrality was the thing to be proved to those rightfully charged with the privilege of 
considering the fate of the prize. But was neutrality proved? The report of the 
capture shows that the vessel was seized because the clearance was in contravention of 
the laws and customs of France. The absence of papers was not suggested nor sus- 
picion raised at the time in regard to the neutral character of the freight. The vessel 
was registered, but notwithstanding she showed her sea letter, the prize court con- 
demned both vessel and cargo on the same ground. The oral testimony before the 
tribunal was direct that the proprietary interest was in citizens of the United States. 
While the question of going outside the papers is not free from doubt, we think, on the 
whole case, this oral testimony was competent and sufficient to exonerate the cargo. 



670 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

This seems to us, upon reflection, to be more nearly in consonance with the rules of 
international law and the reasons which underlie the action of nations in dealing with 
•each other in time of war than a rule making papers the sole test." 

It was decided in the case of the Industry (22 C. Cls. R. , 1) that the lack of a particular 
paper of a vessel may be punishable under certain circumstances within local juris- 
dictions as a police measure, but never by absolute confiscation, when it is shown that 
the vessel is innocently pursuing a legitimate voyage. An accident is easily supposable 
by which, after leaving port and while on the high seas, all the papers of a ship may, 
by fire or water, be destroyed. On that account should the ship and cargo, or either 
of them, be confiscated? We know of no rule of law, municipal or international, 
which would authorize such a course. 

In Hooper's case (22 C. Cls. R., 1) it was held that, while it is true the onus probandi 
is upon the captured vessel in all prize-court proceedings, in order to clear herself from 
suspicion, yet no particular paper is indispensable to accomplish such purpose, and 
that an honest, commercial, lawful voyage may be shown though no paper of any sort 
be presented. 

In the disposition of this class of cases, this court has uniformly decided that all 
questions of neutrality are questions of good faith, in which actual facts, and not 
simply appearances, must be looked into, and that the mere absence of a particular 
■document, or an irregularity in form, does not authorize condemnation as good prize in 
any case. The truth must be sought, and that not by technical forms. Simple 
omissions or irregularities should never obscure the truth if it be otherwise proved. 
The essential question is whether the cargo is or is not, in fact, neutral. It is not of 
importance that the municipal law of one government requires the presentation of 
particular papers. The severity of the legislators is always subordinate to the sur- 
rounding circumstances, which alone lead to conviction. The neutrality should be 
proved, but this may be done notwithstanding the omission or irregularity of certain 
prescribed forms. (Schooner Hazard, 39 C. Cls. R., 376, 380.) 

The case of the schooner Betsy (36 C. Cls., 256), upon which the defendants rely as 
sustaining their contention that the seizure of the cargo of the Townsend was a proper 
procedure, is by no means on all fours with the case before us. The Betsy carried a 
manifest showing of what her cargo consisted, but she produced no document or other 
■evidence which showed that it was owned by American citizens and not by belligerents. 
The claimants in that case relied mainly upon a New England custom to the effect 
that among vessels engaged in the trade with the West Indies no proof of ownership 
was necessary when the cargo belonged entirely to the owners of the vessel carrying it. 
The court very properly held in that case ' ' that the courts of another nation were not 
bound to take notice of a local custom utterly at variance with the provisions of the 
treaty of 1778 and the requirements of international law; " that it was necessary to show 
whether the cargo was the property of neutral or belligerent owners, and that a prize 
■court of a belligerent power was justifiable in condemning property as good prize 
unless neutrality of ownership is clearly established. The court further held in that 
case as follows: 

"Ownership is one thing and neutrality is another. The French prize court was not 
interested in the question whether the cargo belonged to this or that American citizen, 
but in the question whether it was the property of neutral or belligerent owners. A 
prize court of a belligerent power was entitled to have the neutrality of a cargo estab- 
lished. The treaty of 1778 was based upon the principle that free ships make free 
goods; but it also required 'that if either of the parties should be engaged in war the 
ships and vessels belonging to the subjects or people of the other ally must be furnished 
with a sea letter or passports made out according to the form annexed to the treaty, and 
likewise that such ships should be provided always with a certificate containing the 
several particulars of the cargo.' (Art. XXV.) • 

"The manifest on board answered this last requirement, so that if the vessel had 
been seized before the abrogation of the treaty and had carried a proper passport her 
■cargo would have been exempt from seizure. There is no evidence in the case except 
a register, a manifest, and the local custom above referred to. It is recited in the 
decree that she had a sea letter not properly attested, but it does not appear .that the 
sea letter was that prescribed by the treaty, and if it were it would not have been 
obligatory, we think, upon France after the abrogation' of the treaty by the act of 7th 
July, 1798 (1 Stat. L., p. 578), on the part of the United States. 

"It seems, then, only too apparent, so far as now appears, that the vessel carried 
nothing to establish the neutrality of the cargo. There is no protest on the part of the 
master in the case, showing the circumstances of the seizure and condemnation, or 
that he had asserted the rights of American owners, or offered proof of the neutrality of 
the cargo, or established any ground upon which this court can hold that the condem- 
. nation was illegal and unjust. The fault was the vessel's. Upon this evidence, and 
want of evidence, it must be held that the prize court was justified in decreeing 
condemnation. ' ' 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 671 

In the case at bar the Townsend carried a register, a sea letter, the agreement of 
the captain with his men, showing the destination of the vessel to be the port of Antigua, 
clearance papers from Wiscasset, U. S. A., instructions from the owners to the captain 
for Antigua, a printed notice showing what action should be taken in case of seizure, 
and after the sloop was seized by the Le Pellitier the evidence of the captain of the 
Townsend was taken while he was in prison and was read at the trial, which stated 
positively that the owners of the cargo were the same persons who owned the vessel 
(which fact was also stated in the decree of condemnation), that all of them were 
American citizens, and therefore in no respect were belligerents; while, as shown 
above, the only evidence presented in the case of the Betsy relied upon to establish 
the neutrality of her cargo was a register, a manifest, and the local New England custom 
to which we have referred. 

We agree with the counsel for the defendants that the claim for the insurance on 
the sloop and cargo is not valid as against France, for the reason that the same was 
effected by two policies dated the 11th and 21st of December, 1798, and as the con- 
demnation of sloop and cargo took place October 18 prior to the issuance of the same, 
France can not be made liable for the premiums therefor, nor is the United States 
chargeable therewith. Consequently no allowance can be made in favor of claimants 
for premiums of insurance so paid. (Schooner John Eason, 37 C. Cls. R., 443, 447.) 

The theory upon which a premium of insurance has been deemed recoverable in 
this class of cases is that the payment of the premium adds so much to the value of the 
property insured; but the liability of France is limited to the value of the property 
at the time of its illegal seizure or condemnation and can not be augmented by sub- 
sequent transactions between owners and insurers. 

There was another question of vast importance raised in the trial of this case, viz, 
that immediately following the capture of the Townsend and her arrival at Guadeloupe 
her captain was imprisoned and was not allowed to be personally present at the trial 
before the prize court, although it is established that his deposition was taken while 
he was in prison and was read at the hearing of the case. Counsel for the United States 
insists that he was duly heard in his own defense, although not personally present at 
the trial, yet he was nevertheless legally heard, and, as a matter of fact, "had his day 
in court. " He further insists that it is a privilege and not a right for a litigant to ap- 
pear in court by counsel. Without attempting to pass upon the statement of counsel 
as to the rights of litigants to appear in legal tribunals personally or by authorized 
attorneys, under the customs and rules formerly and at the present time which prevail 
in this and other countries, we shall advert only to the decisions of this court in such 
matters. 

In the case of the brig Sally (37 C. Cls. R., 74) it was held that when a vessel is 
seized the master should have the right to appear and defend his ship and its cargo 
against the alleged illegality of the voyage, and by refusing him such privilege he was 
denied due process of law. It was also further decided in that case that '' the fact of 
sale and the absence of the master from the judicial proceedings in which it may be the 
ship was condemned. " 

In the case of the snow Thetis (Ibid., 470) the right of the master, or some other 
officer of the vessel in duress, to be present in a court during condemnation proceedings 
is clearly and unequivocally reaffirmed, by emoting with approval from Sir William 
Scott the following paragraph: 

"Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor there must be a regular 
judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon 
as prize in a court of admiralty, judging by the law of nations and treaties. " 

The right of an officer to defend his vessel after seizure has been made is carefully 
set forth in the case of the schooner Maria (39 C. Cls. R., 147). In that case it was ■ 
decided substantially that while it is true the seizure and condemnation of a vessel 
may have been made for good cause, yet it was a right of the master to be present at 
the prize court to defend the owners, and where he was prevented by imprisonment 
from so doing the proceeding was ex -parte and wholly void. 

A prize proceeding is an action in rem, and where the master of a captured vessel* 
absents himself on his own volition, such act would not operate to defeat a condem- 
nation otherwise valid. And while the examination of a master in preparatorio, while 
under that duress which is implied from the mere capture of his vessel, would be 
competent evicfence to be considered in the first instance for the condemnation of the 
vessel, it would not be if the master, in addition to such implied duress, were im- 
prisoned and the examination in preparatorio was behind prison bars, because in such 
case the master would be deprived of his liberty, and his answers might bear the im- 
press of such imprisonment. The latter is this case, and, therefore, if the seizure and 
condemnation were otherwise legal, that of itself, under the decisions of this court, is 
sufficient to justify the court in holding that such condemnation was illegal. A prize 



672 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

proceeding is no exception to the universal principle of justice, which requires a 
proper legal hearing before condemnation can be ordered. {The Snow Thetis, 470, 
supra; The Good Intent, 36 C. Cls., 262, 265.) 

The findings of fact and conclusions of law will be reported to the Congress, together 
with a copy of this opinion. 

Howry, J., concurring as to the sloop, but dissenting as to the cargo: 

I concur as to the illegality of the condemnation of the sloop, because its nationality 
was sufficiently proven to the prize court by its register and other papers. 

I dissent as to the cargo, because the belligerent rights of the French (which became 
American rights under the act of our jurisdiction) are shown by the decree and the sur- 
rounding circumstances and have not been disproved under the rule that the decree of 
a prize court is conclusive against all the world as to all matters decided and within its 
jurisdiction ( Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 603). Such decree does not usually state 
the grounds of condemnation, but where it does is conclusive of its own correctness. 
The fact of real title is open to investigation only as to those matters not concluded by 
the recitals of the decree {Matey v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch, 642;. 

The decree recites want of a r6le d'equipage and the absence of an invoice. 

The majority say the absence of a r61e d'equipage is no longer a debatable question. 
(Neither side makes it a question.) 

But the invoice was quite material, because its absence is strong presumptive 
evidence against neutrality. What, then, do we find? No sufficient proof of property, 
no muster roll, no bill of lading, no manifest, no invoice. These are some of the papers 
which are always expected to be found on board. (Baker's Halleck's Int. Law, sec. 
98; 1 Chitty^s Com. Law, 487.) 

The case is not sustained by the Hazard, Campbell (39 C. Cls. B., 376). Froof 
aliunde the vessel's papers was admitted in the Hazard, not to contradict the recitals 
of the decree as to the invoice, but, as the papers were not deemed the sole test of neu- 
trality, the court looked to all other papers and some subsequent testimony to deter- 
mine neutrality. In the case at bar we do the same thing. But here the master's 
protest only alleges ownership of the vessel, and does not claim neutrality for the 
cargo. There is no subsequent paper disclosed except a general statement at the time 
of the sloop's clearance that its owners were freighterers. "Freighter," in French 
law, is the owner of the vessel, and the merchant who hires it is called the "affreighter" 
(Emerigon-Traite, Des. Assurances; Black's Law Dictionary). That there was no 
paper on board which showed the neutrality of the cargo, and that the master's protest 
and the circumstances confirmed the truth of the decree, establishes the condemna- 
tion legal as to the cargo. The good faith of the French is shown by the subsequent 
delivery of every paper in this case to the American owners of the sloop. 

The Hazard, Campbell, supra — Howry, J., speaking for the court — was the extreme 
of liberality in this class of cases. There it appeared that the Supreme Court had said 
that the law of nations presumed and required that in time of war every neutral vessel 
should have on board papers showing her character, and should also have officers and 
crew able to testify to facts establishing neutrality. This court gave effect to that 
other decision of the Supreme Court in the Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat., 561, where it 
appeared that the mere want of papers could not afford a just cause of condemnation, 
but a circumstance of suspicion explainable by the preparatory examinations of the 
officers and crew, and by the fact of a voluntary arrival. Accordingly, the decision 
went off on the ground that, while the absence of papers was strong presumptive evi- 
dence against the ship's neutrality, the want of any one of them was not absolutely 
conclusive (1 Kent's Com., 157). 

In the case at bar the absence of the invoice was suggested, and it has never been 
accounted for — not even in the subsequent protest of the master. Hence, the decree 
is conclusive. 

So much of the opinion of the majority as rests the supposed illegal action of the 
prize tribunal upon the alleged imprisonment of the master is a matter too important 
to be passed over. It says that the master was not allowed to be personally present 
at the trial. The master does not say so. There is not a syllable in the entire evi- 
dence which supports that statement. The master merely states in general terms that 
he was imprisoned three months. How, where, whether on the island in duress, like 
nearly every blockade runner or shipmaster violating the laws of neutrality, does not 
appear. 

The record shows that there was a regular judicial proceeding and that the master 
was there. He must have been there delivering testimony, because his deposition 
shows him to have been there. 

These considerations take the case out of that class where this court has decided 
that imprisonment and absence operated to prevent the master from being heard in 
his defense, and where we have held that the matter of imprisonment was necessary 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 673 

to be considered to prevent confiscation. Not a single case has ever been decided by 
this court where it has appeared that if the master's evidence was taken and the record 
shows that he was there the duress of his person made void the proceeding. When a 
vessel is on trial for violating the laws of neutrality the master and crew are all under 
duress and practically in restraint. It is upon the ship's papers and the examination 
taken in preparatorio that the case is tried. 

In Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat., 76, the Supreme Court has held that in prize cases the 
cause is to be heard exclusively upon the ship's papers, and the examination of the 
principal officers and seamen of the captured vessel taken on the standing interroga- 
tories. This is the established rule. 

In the case of the Ann, in 3 Wheat., 434, the vessel was captured by an American 
privateer while at anchor near the Spanish part of the island of St. Domingo and car- 
ried into New York for adjudication. The master and supercargo were put on shore 
at St. Domingo, and all the rest of the crew, except the mate, carpenter, and cook, 
were put on board the captured vessel. After arrival at New York the deposition of 
the cook only was taken, which, with the ship's papers, were transmitted by the com- 
mander to the judge of the district of Maryland to which the case of the Ann was 
removed. The trial upon prize proceedings being instituted, the testimony of the 
carpenter was taken by the claimants, and the captors were also permitted to give 
testimony. The separation of the master and. the principal officers and the crew from 
the vessel was not held fatal to the regularity of the proceedings. 

These decisions from the Supreme Court prove that the award in this case, pred- 
icable upon the alleged imprisonment, is an innovation in prize law. Numberless 
prize proceedings during the war between the States would now appear to be illegal 
if this award is law. And when we come to consider that the awards of this court in 
these cases are not the subject of review by the Supreme Court and that this erroneous 
decision on a matter so vital (as I view it) will some time or other 4;um to vex the Gov- 
ernment, it is of more than passing importance that the reasons of my dissent shall 
be recorded. 

No case decided by us is authority for this award. The conclusions are squarely 
against the ruling in the Betsey, 36 C. Cls. R.., 256, where Nott, Ch. J., said that though 
that vessel carried a manifest showing of what the cargo consisted and that it was an 
innocent or commercial cargo, nevertheless she carried no document whatever to 
show neutrality. The conclusion there was that the prize courts of a belligerent 
nation were not bound to take notice of a local custom at variance with the require- 
ments of international law or to infer, in the absence of an invoice, that the cargo 
belonged to the owners of the vessel. That is this case. 

Nor are the conclusions of the court supported by the snow Thetis, 37 C. Cls. E.., 472, 
where Howry, J., speaking for the court, said that "where the decree of a prize tribunal 
is silenf as to the presence of the parties in interest and there is neither protest nor 
proof equivalent to it showing that the owners or their agents were denied a hearing, 
the presumption is that they were present and given an opportunity to defend. But 
where it can be gathered from the action of the prize court or from proof contempo- 
raneous with the transaction that the proceeding was one of those which justified the 
American complaint of that period respecting condemnations without notice to ves- 
sel owners, no effect will be given to the summary disposition of a vessel under such 
a decree. " Then followed the statement that, though the decree showed on its face 
that the decision upon its announcement was to be notified to the master, there was 
nothing to show his presence or the presence of any other person in interest at the 
hearing. 

There is nothing to change in the Thetis opinion. The failure to notify the decision 
of the prize court to the master there was merely intended by this court to emphasize 
the fact that neither the master nor other person in interest was present at the hearing. 
The master was even denied the opportunity to see his ship or the authorities who took 
it away from him while he was imprisoned elsewhere, and the statement as to the notice 
given to the mate was an immaterial statement. The extract from the Thetis by the 
majority is as defective (in not stating enough) as the citation from the same case of 
counsel for claimant is inapposite. No court holds itself bound by any part of an 
opinion not needful to the ascertainment of the right or title in question between the 
parties. (Carroll v. Lessee, 16 How., 286.) 

Common-law principals and common-law rules of evidence have frequently been 
objected to in these cases, because counsel have argued (present counsel included) 
that common-law proceedings were relaxed by the statute of our jurisdiction. Now 
it appears that common-law proceedings are invoked by way of precedent to sustain 
this finding as to the cargo. 

But prize proceedings are summary and differ materially from common law rules of 
procedure. "Notice is only for the purpose of affording the party axr opportunity of 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 43 



674 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

being heard upon the claim or the charges made. ' ' The books are full of cases showing 
that in a libel pending in an admiralty jurisdiction, the manner of the notification! s 
immaterial. 

The late Justice Gray decided legal questions, including those pertaining to admi- 
ralty, so satisfactorily to the people of Massachusetts, that he was called to the bench 
of the Supreme Court of the United States. Speaking for that tribunal, he said: 

' ' The law of nations presumes and requires that in time of war every neutral vessel 
shall have on board papers showing her character, and shall also have officers and crew 
able to testify to facts establishing her neutrality. The captors are therefore required 
immediately to produce to the prize court the ship's papers, and her master, or some 
of her principal officers or crew, to be examined on oath upon standing interrogatories 
and without communication with or instruction by counsel. The cause is heard in the 
first instance upon these proofs, and if they show clear ground for condemnation or 
for acquittal no further proof is ordinarily required or permitted. If the evidence in 
preparatorio shows no ground for condemnation and no circumstances of suspicion 
the captors will not ordinarily be allowed to introduce further proof, but there must 
be an acquittal and restitution. When further proof is ordered, it is only from such, 
witnesses and upon such points as the prize court may, in its discretion, think fit." 
(Cushing v. Laird, 107 U. S., 77.) 

The conclusions of the majority proceed upon the inconsistent assumption that the 
master was not there to be believed, but if he was there that he 'should have been 
believed. Belief of a witness is always a matter of discretion in any kind of court 
having jurisdiction. 

There is a final observation not justified by the opinion of the majority. There 
is no proof that the master was behind prison bars. There is a mere inference arising 
from the general statement set forth in the master's protest after he got home, that 
he was imprisoned. , He may have been, but the record shows him to have been 
at the trial. 

As to the cargo, therefore, the award is erroneous. 

I am authorized to say that Booth, J., concurs in the findings and conclusions 
expressed in this dissent. 

By the Court. 

Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Eandolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER BETSIE. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d Ed., 471. Vessel, schooner Betsie, George Hastie, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimants. 

459. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. 

The United States. 
487. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvaina v. The United States. 
1339. Henry Pettit, administrator of Andrew Pettit, et al, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were heard before the Court of Claims on the 19th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Wm. T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Thomas Stokes, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Betsie, George Hastie, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or 
about April 29, 1800, from Philadelphia, bound for Cape Francais. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on May 17, 1800, by the French 
privateer L } Union, plundered of a quantity of dry goods, wines, cordage, etc., manned 
by a prize crew, and ordered to proceed to Guadaloupe. On May 22, 1800, she was 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 675 

recaptured by the United States frigate Philadelphia, ordered to St. Christopher's, 
and there delivered to the custody of David M. Clarkson, United States naval agent, 
for the collection of salvage. Salvage was awarded in the amount of one-eighth of 
the value of the vessel and cargo. 

II. The Betsie was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 94|| tons burden, 
was built at Barnstable, Mass., in 1796, and was owned solely by Thomas Jones and 
Stephen Smith, citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Betsie consisted of provisions, dry goods, soap, claret, etc. 
Jones & Smith were the owners of a consignment of soap, candles, lard, butter, 

tobacco, etc., of the value of at least $1,240.54, exclusive of premiums of insurance. 

Richard Milne was the owner of a consignment of two trunks of ginghams, of the 
value of at least $1,176, the amount of insurance effected thereon. 

Martin & Holmes were the owners of a consignment of 4 hogsheads of tobacco, of the 
value of $309.85, exclusive of premiums of insurance. 

James Hutton was the owner of a consignment of lard, hams, and candles. 

Nicholas Diehl & Son were the owners of a consignment of pork and flour, of the value 
of $768.75, exclusive of premiums of insurance. 

James and Robert Adams were the owners of a consignment of soap, lard, hams, and 
candles. 

John Selsman was the owner of a consignment of claret, of the value of at least $1,470, 
the amount of insurance effected thereon. 

Samuel Archer was the owner of a consignment of dry goods, of the value of $3,550.20, 
exclusive of premiums of insurance. 

George Hastie was the owner of an adventure of merchandise, of the value of $440.96, 
exclusive of premiums of insurance. 

IV. April 29, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the vessel in the amount of 
$3,000, in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a 
premium of 132 P er cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the said insured 
$2,940 for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. Subsequently said insurance 
company recovered $1,172.35 under the abandonment executed by the insured, 
reducing the loss of said company on said policy to $1,767.65. 

May 24, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the vessel in the sum of $500 in 
the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, paying therefor a 
premium of 7 2 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $490 
in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Subsequently said 
insurance company recovered $200.41, under the abandonment executed by the 
insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to the net amount of $289.59. 

April 29, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the cargo in the amount of 
$3,000 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a 
premium of 13 2 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured 
$2,940, being in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Sub- 
sequently said insurance company recovered $2,128.46 under the abandonment 
executed by the insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to the sum 
of $811.54. 

May 24, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the cargo in the amount of 
$1,500 in the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylyania, paying 
therefor a premium of 7J per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the 
insured $1,470, for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Subse- 
quently said insurance company recovered $1,041, under an abandonment executed 
by the insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to $429. 

April 22, 1800, Richard Milne effected insurance on cargo in the amount of $1,200 
in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium 
of 14 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $1,176, in full 
for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. 

April 25, 1800, Martin & Holmes effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $360 in 
the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 
13| per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $352.80 in full 
for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Said cargo was worth $309.85, 
and was overinsured in the sum of $42.95. 

May 5, 1800, Nicholas Diehl & Son effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $800 
in the office of the Insurance Company of North Anierica, paying therefor a premium 
of 7 2 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $784, being in 
full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Subsequently said 
insurance company recovered $613.95, reducing said company's loss on said policy 
to $170.05. Said cargo was worth $768.75, and was overinsured in the sum of $15.25. 
Amount recoverable is therefore $154.80. 



676 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

James & Robert Adams effected insurance on cargo in the office of the Insurance 
Company of North America. There is no proof of American citizenship of said James 
& Robert Adams, and no recovery based upon their loss can be maintained. 

May 3, 1800, Keen & Stillwell, as agents for George Hastie, effected insurance on 
cargo in the sum of $600 in the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, paying therefor a pre- 
mium of 13| per cent. The policy was underwritten as follows: 

Samuel Meeker : $600. 00 

Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, paid the insured $534.54 for a general 
average loss of 89.09 per cent. Said cargo was worth $440.96 and was overinsured in 
the sum of $93.58. 

May 8, 1800, John Slesman effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $1,500 in the 
office of Shoemaker & Berrett, paying therefor a premium of 13J per cent, the policy 
being underwritten as follows: 

Ambrose Vasse $750. 00 

Morgan & Price 750. 00 

Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, paid the insured $1,470, being in full 
for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. 

May 23, 1800, Samuel Archer effected insurance on the cargo in the sum of $4,000 in 
the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, paying therefor a premium of 13| per cent, the policy 
being underwritten as follows: 

Miller & Murray $1, 000. 00 

Ebenezer Large 500. 00 

Pettit & Bayard 800. 00 

William Wain 500. 00 

Daniel W. Coxe 500. 00 

William Read & Co 700.00 

Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, paid the insured $3,920, being in full for 
a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. Said cargo was worth $3,550.20 and was 
overinsured in the sum of $369.80. The losses to the above underwriters on this policy 
were therefore as follows: 

Miller & Murray $887. 55 

Ebenezer Large 443. 78 

Pettit & Bayard .' 710. 04 

William Wain 443.77 

Daniel W. Coxe 443.77 

William Read & Co 621.29 

V. The losses by reason of the capture of the Betsie were as follows: 

Insurance Company of North America $4, 219. 84 

Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania 718. 59 

Samuel Meeker 440. 96 

Ambrose Vasse 735. 00 

Morgan & Price 735. 00 

Miller & Murray 887.55 

Ebenezer Large 443. 78 

Pettit & Bayard 710. 04 

William Wain 443.77 

Daniel W. Coxe 443.77 

William Read & Co 621. 29 



10, 399. 59 

VI. The firm of Morgan & Price was composed solely of Benjamin Morgan and 
Chandler Price, said Chandler Price being the surviving partner of the firm. 

The firm of Miller & Murray was composed solely of William Miller and Alexander 
Murray, said Alexander Murray being the surviving partner of the firm. 

The firm of Pettit & Bayard was composed solely of Andrew Pettit and Andrew 
Bayard. Said Andrew Pettit was the survivor of the firm. 

The firm of William Read & Co., was composed solely of William Read and Matthew 
Pearce. Said William Read was the survivor of the firm. 

The Insurance Company of North America was and is duly incorporated under the 
laws of the State of Pennsylvania. 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania was and is duly incorporated 
under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 677 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Betsie, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty 
between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
four thousand two hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-four cents . . $4, 219. 84 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, seven hundred and 

eighteen dollars and fifty -nine cents : 718. 59 

Frederick W. Meeker, administrator of Samuel Meeker, four hundred and 
forty dollars and ninety-six cents 440. 96 

Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, seven hundred and 
thirty-five dollars. _ ._ 735. 00 

A. Louis Eakin, administrator of Chandler Price, surviving partner of Mor- 
gan & Price,- seven hundred and thirty-five dollars 735. 00 

George W. Guthrie, administrator of Alexander Murray, surviving partner of 
Miller & Murray, eight hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty-five 
cents. 887. 55 

William Mifflin, adminstrator of Ebenezer Large, four hundred and forty- 
three dollars and seventy-eight cents 443. 78 

Henry Pettit, administrator of Andrew Pettit, surviving partner of Pettit 

& Bayard, seven hundred and ten dollars and four cents 710. 04 

Richard C. McMurtrie, administrator of Daniel W. Coxe, four hundred and 
forty-three dollars and seventy-seven cents. 443. 77 

William R. Fisher, administrator of William Read, surviving partner of 
William Read & Co., six hundred and twenty-one dollars and twenty- 
nine cents 621. 29 



9, 955. 82 



Amounting in all to nine thousand nine hundred and fifty -five dollars and eighty- 
two cents. 

Thomas Jones, Stephen Smith (firm of Jones & Smith); Robert C. Martin, Abel 
Holmes (firm of Martin & Holmes); James Hutton; Nicholas Diehl, John Diehl (firm 
of Nich. Diehl & Son) ; Robert Adams, James Adams (firm of James and Robert Adams) ; 
Richard Milne; John Slesman; Samuel Archer; and George Hastie, are not in court. 

William Wain is indebted to the United States Government on certain unpaid 
bonds. This indebtedness being greater than the amount of his claim herein, his 
administrator is entitled to no recovery. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



678 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

BRIG HOPE. , 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Hope, Joseph Bright, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

805. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. 
The United States. 

1349. Francis A. Lewis et al., administrators of Peter Blight et al., v. The United 
States. 

1832. E. Francis Biggs, administrator of James Lawrason, deceased, surviving part- 
ner of Shreve & Lawrason, v. The United States. 

2130. Lawrence Stabler, administrator of William Hartshorne, deceased, remaining 
partner of William Hartshorne & Sons, v. The United States. 

2628. William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. Corcoran; James M. John- 
ston, surviving administrator of George W. Biggs; and Robert S. Chew, 
administrator of Richard Smith, v. The United States. 

4385. Julian T. Burke, administrator of George Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Bickett, John 
St. C. Brookes, and Thomas Stokes, and The United States, defendants, by the Attor- 
ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., 
with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Hope, Joseph Bright, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about 
May 19, 1797, from Alexandria, Va., bound for Martinico and St. Croix. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas June 22, 1797, by the 
French privateer Le Pandour, Captain Gariscan, and carried into Jacqmel, Hispaniola. 
On July 6, 1797, the vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize by the Commission 
of the French Government sitting at Cape Francois. 

The sole ground of condemnation, as stated in the decree, was as follows: 
"That the vessel was bound for Martinico, which island had been declared by a 
decree of the Commission to be in a state of siege." 

II. The Hope was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 160 tons burthen, 
built at Falmouth, Mass., in 1783, and owned by the firm of Shreve & Lawrason, com- 
posed of Benjamin Shreve and James Lawrason; the firm of William Hartshorne & 
Sons, composed of William Hartshorne, William Hartshorne, jr., and Mordecai Miller; 
George Slacum and Abram Hewes, in the following proportions: The firm of Shreve & 
Lawrason, one-sixth part; the firm of William Hartshorne & Sons, one-half part; 
George Slacum, one-sixth part; and Abram Hewes, one-sixth part. All of said persons 
were citizens of the United States and residents of Alexandria, Va. 

III. The cargo of the Hope at the time of seizure consisted of flour, crackers, and 
shingles, and was owned by Edward Dunant, Joshua Gilpin, and Mordecai Miller, all 
citizens of the United States. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation were as follows:. 

Value of vessel $4, 000. 00 

Freight earnings 2, 690. 00 

Value of cargo (to amount of insurance paid) 11, 552. 52 

Premium of insurance paid on vessel and freight 64. 50 ' 

Amounting in all to 18, 307. 02 

V. The loss to Shreve & Lawrason was as follows ' 

One-sixth value of vessel 1666. 67 

One-sixth value of freight earnings 448. 33 

Premium of insurance paid 64. 50 

Amounting in all to 1, 179. 50 

Deduct insurance received 430. 00 

Net loss 7,479.50 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 679 

The loss to William Hartshorn e & Sons was as follows: 

One-half value of vessel $2, 000. 00 

One-half value of freight earnings 1, 345. 00 



Net loss 3,345.00 

VI. The firm of Shreve & Lawrason effected insurance on the vessel and freight in 
the sum of $430, of which amount George Taylor assumed $125, being insurance on the 
vessel. Thereafter the firm of Shreve & Lawrason received the sum of $430, being in 
full for a total loss as aforesaid. 

May 24, 1797, Edward Dunant, for himself and Joshua Gilpin, effected insurance in 
the office of the Insurance Company of North America on the cargo in the sum of $6,000, 
paying therefor a premium of 12 J per cent. Thereafter said insurance company duly 
paid the said assured the sum of $5,917.52, being in full for a total loss, less certain 
charges. 

May 24, 1797, Edward Dunant, for himself and Joshua Gilpin, effected through the 
office of Shoemaker & Berrett insurance on the cargo, but no proof is made that pay- 
ment of the above policy was made, either by the underwriters or by Shoemaker & 
Berrett as their agents. 

May 24, 1797, Edward Dunant, for himself and Joshua Gilpin, effected insurance, 
through the office of Wharton & Lewis, on the cargo in the sum of $5,750, paying there- 
for a premium of 12J per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named 
persons, who, as far as they appear in court, are citizens of the United States, each in 
the sum set opposite his name, respectively: 



Peter Blight $500 Thomas & John Clifford 

Samuel Blodgett 500 John G. Wachsmuth 500 

Thomas Murgatroyd 500 Abijah Dawes 400 

John Leamy 500 James Crawford & Co 500 

Thomas & Eli Canby : 500 Charles Pettit , 850 

John Savage 500 

Thereafter Wharton & Lewis, as agents for the underwriters, paid to said assured 
the sum of $5,635, being in full for a total loss on the above policy, less an abatement 
of 2 per cent, being a loss to said underwriters of 98 per cent of the amount underwritten 
by them, respectively. 

About July, 1831, said George Taylor, being unable to pay his debts in full, executed 
an assignment to the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United 
States, a corporation chartered by act of Congress approved the 10th day of April, 1816, 
"his claims against the Government of the United States for French spoliations com- 
mitted prior to the treaty of the 30th September, 1800," a schedule of which was 
attached, and included "claims as underwriter." Said assignment was to the use 
of the several parties named, in payment and discharge of their respective demands 
against him, and in proportion thereto, as follows: 

Bank of the United States $5, 870. 05 

Bank of Alexandria 900. 00 

Bank of Potomac, say 750. 00 

Indorser, Njatkaniel] W[attles] 4, 500. 00 

John Corse 350. 00 



Total ' 12, 370. 05 

Subsequently, to wit, March 2, 1836, said Bank of the United States, chartered by 
act of Congress, as aforesaid, assigned and transferred, among other property, to the 
bank of the same name, chartered by an act of assembly of the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, the said claim of said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of 
Congress, as aforesaid, against the said George Taylor, and said spoliation claims of 
said Taylor, then held by said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of Congress, 
as collateral security for the said Taylor's debt, as aforesaid. 

Subsequently, to wit, May 1, 1841, said Bank of the United States, chartered by act 
of assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as aforesaid, assigned and trans- 
ferred, among other property, to- James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel 
W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell the said claim of said Bank of the 
United States, chartered by act of Congress, against the said George Taylor, and said 
spoliation claims of said George Taylor, then held by said Bank of the United States, 
chartered by act of Congress, as collateral security for the said Taylor's debt, as afore- 
said. 



680 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

Subsequently, to wit, August 29, 1846, said James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis 
(Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell, by deed, assigned 
and transferred to said William W. Corcoran said claim against George Taylor for 
$5,870.05, together with said collateral security. 

Although said claim against said George Taylor, and said claim of said George Tay- 
lor against the United States, before referred to, were assigned and transferred to said 
William W. Corcoran, in severalty, the consideration paid to the said James Dundas, 
Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell 
for the assignments and transfers aforesaid, was contributed equally by said William 
W. Corcoran, George W. Riggs, and Richard Smith, under an agreement existing 
between them that the money or property transferred by virtue of said assignments, 
should be divided equally between the three persons named, and all property thus far 
recovered under said assignments and transfers has been so divided. 

The firm of Shreve and Lawrason was composed solely of Benjamin Shreve and James 
Lawrason; said James Lawrason was the surviving partner of the firm. 

The firm of William Hartshorne & Sons was composed solely of William Hartshorne, 
William Hartshorne, jr., and Mordecai Miller; said William Hartshorne was the re- 
maining partner. 

The firm of James Crawford & Co. was composed solely of James Crawford and 
William Rusk; said James Crawford was the surviving partner of the firm. 

The firm of Thomas & John Clifford was composed solely of Thomas Clifford and 
John Clifford; said John Clifford was the surviving partner of the firm. 

The Insurance Company of North America was and is duly incorporated under the 
laws of the State of Pennsylvania. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Hope, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention 'between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were. not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

E. Francis Riggs, administrator of James Lawrason, deceased, surviving 
partner of Shreve & Lawrason, seven hundred and forty-nine dollars and 
fifty cents $749. 50 

Lawrence Stabler, administrator of William Hartshorne, deceased, re- 
maining partner of William Hartshorne & Sons, three thousand three 
hundred and forty-five dollars 3, 345. 00 

D. Fitzhugh Savage, administrator of John Savage, four hundred and 
ninety dollars 490. 00 

Francis A. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, four hundred and ninety 

dollars ' 490. 00 

Charles McCafferty, administrator of Samuel Blodgett, four hundred and 
ninety dollars 490. 00 

Sarah Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, four hundred and 
ninety dollars 490. 00 

J. Bayard Henry, administrator of John Leamy, four hundred and ninety 

dollars 490. 00 

Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, surviving partner of 
Thomas & John Clifford, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. 681 

Samuel Bell, administrator of John G. Wachsmuth, four hundred and 
ninety dollars. $490. 00 

Crawford D. Hening, administrator of James Crawford, surviving partner 
of James Crawford & Co. , four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 

Crawford D. Hening, administrator of Abijah Dawes, three hundred and 
ninety-two dollars 392. 00 

Henry Pettit, administrator of Charles Pettit, eight hundred and thirty- 
three dollars 833. 00 

William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. Corcoran, assignee of 

George Taylor, thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents 32. 52 

James M. Johnston, surviving administrator of George W. Riggs, assignee of 

George Taylor, thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents 32. 52 

Robert S. Chew, administrator of Richard Smith, assignee of George Taylor, 
thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents 32. 52 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
five thousand nine hundred and seventeen dollars and fifty-two cents. . 5, 917. 52 

Amounting in all to fifteen thousand two hundred and fifty-four 

dollars and fifty-eight cents 15, 254. 58 

No person claiming to represent George Slacum, Abram Hewer,, Edward Dunant, 
Joshua Gilpin, James K. Hamilton, or Thomas & Eli Canby have appeared herein. 

No allowance is made for the insurance underwritten by the Insurance Company 
of North America on the commissions of the supercargo. 

No valid claims have been established on behalf of the estates of George Rundle, 
Thomas Leech, Charles Ross, John Simson, Alexander Murray, surviving partner of 
Miller & Murray, John Miller, jr., Jacob Baker, surviving partner of Baker & Comegys, 
and Mark Prager, jr., surviving partner of Pragers & Co. 

The cargo owners are not in court. 

The assignment of George Taylor hereinbefore set forth in the conclusions of fact, 
to the extent of the debts of Nathaniel Wattles and John Corse, for which he had been 
personally liable as surety, and which assignment, to that extent, was made in lieu 
of his personal liability as such surety, can not at this day be carried out and must 
be held to have failed. It -would be inequitable, considering the circumstances of 
the case, to make any deduction on that account, and none is made. 

No allowance is made to Julian T. Burke, administrator of George Taylor, as the 
assignment of the latter beyond the part thereof regarding the debts of Nathaniel 
Wattles and John Corse, is held operative applying to his own indebtedness, which 
has not yet been fully extinguished. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER KITTY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel, schooner Kitty, Jacob Singleton, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

834. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. 

United States. 
1992. Ormes B. Keith, surviving executor of Samuel Keith, v. United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 18th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Thomas Stokes, esq., and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General, Josiah A. 
Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Kitty, Jacob Singleton, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
or about May 11, 1797, from Philadelphia, bound to Kingston, Jamaica. - While peace- 



682 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

fully pursuing said voyage, she was captured on the high seas May 28, 1797, by the 
French privateer Les Trois Republicaines, and sent into Santiago, Cuba. The vessel 
and cargo were condemned by the commission at Cape Francois on June 11, 1797, 
wherebysthe vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. 
The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows: 
That the vessel was proceeding to Jamaica, an English port. That the cargo was 
English property. 

II. The Kitty was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 90 tons burthen, 
was built at Choptank, Md., in the year 1791, and was owned by the firm of William 
and Samuel Keith, citizens of the United States and residing in Philadelphia. 

III. The cargo of the Kitty at the time of capture consisted of corn meal, rice, lard, 
shooks, hoops, staves, and lumber, and was owned by William and Samuel Keith. 

Jacob Singleton, the master, also had an adventure on board, the value of which 
was in excess of the amount of insurance effected thereon. 

IV. The loss of William and Samuel Keith by reason of the capture and condemna- 
tion of the Kitty was as follows: 

Value of vessel $2. 700. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 192. 00 

Value of cargo 2, 918. 00 

Premium of insurance paid on vessel 405. 00 

Premium of insurance paid on value of cargo 437. 70 



Amounting in all to 7, 652. 70 

Less insurance paid on vessel $2, 646. 00 

Less insurance paid on cargo 3, 544. 94 

6,190.94 

Net loss to William and Samuel Keith 1, 461. 76 

V. May 12, 1797, William and Samuel Keith insured the vessel in the sum of $2,700 
in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium 
of 15 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the said William and Samuel 
Keith the sum of $2,646, for a total loss as aforesaid, less an abatement of 2 per cent. 

May 12, 1797, William and Samuel Keith insured the cargo in the sum of $3,700 in 
the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 
15 per cent. Thereafter the said insurance company paid to William and Samuel 
Keith the sum of $3,544.94 on said policy, but the actual value of said cargo being only 
$2,918, the said cargo was therefore overinsured in the sum of $626.94. 

May 12, 1797, William and Samuel Keith, as agents for Jacob Singleton, insured 
said Singleton's property and effects on board in the sum of $300 in the office of the 
Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. 
Thereafter the said insurance company paid the said Keiths, on behalf of said Single- 
ton, the insured, the sum of $294, being for a total loss as aforesaid, less an abatement 
of 2 per cent. 

VI. The losses to the Insurance Company of North America by reason of the seizure 
and condemnation aforesaid were as follows: 

Amount paid William and Samuel Keith on vessel $2, 646. 00 

Amount paid said Keiths on cargo $3, 544. 94 

Less over insurance on cargo 626. 94 

2,918.00 

Amount paid Jacob Singleton on property and effects 294. 00 

Total loss to Insurance Company of North America 5, 858. 00 

VII. The firm of William and Samuel Keith was composed solely of said William 
and Samuel Keith, said Samuel Keith being the surviving partner. 

The Insurance Company of North America was duly incorporated under the laws of 
the State of Pennsylvania. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Kitty, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 683 

February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831 . 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned, except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Ormes B. Keith, surviving executor of Samuel Keith, surviving partner of 
the firm of William and Samuel Keith, one thousand four hundred and 
sixty-one dollars and seventy -six cents $1, 461. 76 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
five thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight dollars 5, 858. 00 



7, 319. 76 

Amounting in all to seven thousand three hundred and nineteen dollars and seventy- 
six cents. 
Jacob Singleton, the master and owner of an adventure on board, is not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 25 day of November, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER GREYHOUND. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Greyhound , Sylvanus Snow, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1653. George C. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
1811. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Greyhound, Sylvanus Snow, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
February 14, 1798, from Newbern, N. C, bound for St. Bartholomew. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas April 10, 1798, by the French 
privateer Le Destin, Captain Augusto, and the master taken from on board his vessel 
and put ashore at St. Martins, and, not being provided with means of sustenance, was 
obliged by motives of self-preservation to leave St. Martins before the disposition of 
his vessel and cargo was known. Said vessel and cargo were afterwards condemned 
and sold at St. Martins, and various attempts were made to get a copy of her condem- 
nation, but the authorities refused to give such copy. The grounds upon which said 
vessel and cargo were condemned do not appear. 

II. The Greyhound was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 35&f tons 
burden, built at Hingham, Mass., in the year 1784, and owned solely by Sylvanus 
Snow, jr., a citizen of the United States. 



684 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The value of the vessel and the freight earnings were $1,450, for which insur- 
ance was effected as set out below. 

IV. May 14, 1798, Sylvanus Snow, jr., owner of vessel and freight, effected insur- 
ance on said vessel and freight in the office of Peter C." Brooks, insurance broker, of 
Boston, to the amount of $1,450 ($750 on vessel and $700 on freight), paying therefor 
a premium of 25 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named per- 
sons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively: 

Crowell Hatch $700. 00 

Nathaniel Fellowes 750.00 

Thereafter Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,450, 
being in full for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are, in fact, the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Greyhound, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in # part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

George C. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, seven hundred dollars $700. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, seven hundred 

and fifty dollars 750. 00 

Amounting in all to one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars 1, 450. 00 

The owners of vessel, cargo, and freight are not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true. copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP HONOR. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Sloop Honor. William Kimball, master.] 

No. of 
ease. Claimant. 

300. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United 

States. 
George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, v. The United States. 
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Joseph Cordis, v. The United States. 
1914. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 685 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The sloop Honor, William Kimball, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
July 31, 1796, from New London, Conn., bound to Hispaniola. While peacefully pur- 
suing said voyage she was seized on the high seas August 31, 1796, by the French pri- 
vateer V Adelaide, Captain Chetard, and carried into Petit Trou and condemned on 
December 31, 1796 (11th Nivose, year 5), by the tribunal of prizes sitting at Cape 
Francois, on the following ground: 

" That the vessel was bound to the port of Jeremie, which had been declared to be in 
a state of siege." 

II. The sloop Honor was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 53 22/95 
tons burthen, built in Connecticut in the year 1791, and was owned solely by Joseph 
Howland, a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Honor at the time of capture consisted of sheep, hogs, provi- 
sions, shingles, and hoops, and was owned by the said Joseph Howland. 

IV. The value of the vessel was in excess of $1,200 and the cargo in excess of $2,800, 
in which amounts, respectively, insurance was effected thereon as set out below. 

V. August 3, 1796, Joseph Howland, owner of vessel and cargo, effected insurance 
on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $4,000 ($1,200 on vessel and $2,800 on cargo) 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker, of Boston, paying therefor a premium 
of 6 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, each 
in the amount set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

William Smith $500. 00 

Stephen Gorham 500. 00 

David Greene 500. 00 

Nathaniel Fellowes 500. 00 

Crowell Hatch 500. 00 

John Brazer 700. 00 

James Tisdale 400. 00 

Joseph Cordis 400. 00 

Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$3,800, being a loss to each of the above-named underwriters of 95 per cent of the amount 
subscribed by them, respectively. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages 
arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all 
his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in 
the office of said Brooks. 

November 21, 1801, Stephen Gorham, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 to him 
paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of any and all liabilities 
and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned 
to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as 
an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

December 23, 1801, David Greene, for and in consideration of $6,000 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages 
arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all 
his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in 
the office of said Brooks. 

September 4, 1804, John Brazer, for and in consideration of $5,708.85, to hiri paid 
by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities 
and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned 
to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as 
an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
Buffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Honor, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 



686 ALLOWANCE OE CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

' Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid m whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court .decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France aganist the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand and 
ninety dollars $2, 090. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, four hundred 

and seventy-five dollars 475. 00 

George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, three hundred and eighty 
dollars 380. 00 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Joseph Cordis, three hundred and 
eighty dollars 380. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, four hundred and seventy- 
five dollars 475. 00 

Amounting in all to three thousand eight hundred dollars 3, 800. 00 

The owners of the vessel, "cargo, and freight arejiot in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER HIRAM. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Hiram, Ebenezer Barker, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

5551. Moses Sherwood, administrator of the estate of David Coley, jr., deceased, v. 
The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, esq., and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistants in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attor- 
ney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Hiram, Ebenezer Barker, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
in the year 1798, bound for Martinique. While peacefully pursuing said voyage on 
the high seas the Hiram was captured by the French privateer Le Pelletier. 

On the 26th day of July, 1798, the Hiram was condemned by the tribunal of prizes 
at Guadaloupe on the following grounds: pg 

First. That she was documented for Martinique. 

Second. That she had neither invoice nor bill of lading and that her r61e d'equipage 
was not in order. 






ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 687 

II. The Hiram was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 80f§ tons bur- 
then; was built at Stratford, Conn., in 1785, and was owned by David Coley, jr., a 
citizen of the United States. 

III. The decree of condemnation shows that there was a cargo on board at the 
time of capture, but what it consisted of and to whom it belonged does not appear. 

IV. The loss of David Coley, jr., by reason of the capture and condemnation of 
the Hiram was as follows: 

Value of the vessel $2, 000. 00 

No allowance is made for cargo, as it*is not shown of what it consisted or who the 
owners were, and for the same reason no allowance is made for freight. 

The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for 
whom he appears, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the 

f>erson for whose estate he has filed claim is in fact the same person who suffered 
oss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Hiram, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty be- 
tween the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following 
sum from the United States: 

Moses Sherwood, administrator for the estate of David Coley, jr., two 
thousand dollars $2, 000. 00 

Two thousand dollars. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this* 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP FARMER. . 

Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel sloop Farmer, John Grow, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2489. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. 

Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 
2997. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., v. The United 

States. 
3512. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. 

Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, v. The United States. 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. 

Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. 



688 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAI2ST CLAIMS. 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before tile Court of Claims on trie 13th day of March, 1907 . 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS QP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The sloop Farmer, John Grow, master, sailed on a commercial voyage January 12, 
1800, bound from Boston to Trinidad. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she 
was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Bijoux, Captain Dupuy, and car- 
ried to Guadaloupe, where both vessel and cargo were afterwards condemned by the 
prize court sitting at Basseterre in said island, and thereby became a total loss to the 
owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation do not appear, but the examination of 
the master and supercargo of the Farmer by the French authorities show that she had 
violated none of her obligations of neutrality, that she was bound on a commercial 
voyage, and that she carried a cargo no part of which was contraband, and that the 
vessel and cargo were the property of an American citizen and that no papers were 
thrown into the sea or hidden on board. 

The report of the prize master of the privateer shows that no resistance to search was 
made and that the Farmer came to immediately at the summons of the privateer. 

The analysis of the Farmer's papers by the French authorities shows that she carried 
a register, sea letter or passport, agreement with the crew (shipping list), invoice of 
the cargo, certificate of clearance from the custom-house at Boston and Charleston. 

The vessel was carried into Guadaloupe on the 16th day of February, 1800, where 
the master remained until the 16th day of March, when he went to the island of St. 
Thomas, arriving there on March 19. It appears from the report of Somerville P. Tuck 
that said vessel was condemned, but a copy of the condemnation is not produced. 

II. The Farmer was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 76 tons burthen, 
built in the State of Connecticut in the year 1791, and owned solely by William Mar- 
shall, jr., and Benjamin Hooper, both citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Farmer at the time of seizure consisted of beef, bacon, lard, 
flour, tobacco, gin, rice, hams, butter, salmon, biscuit, shingles, boards, wine, staves, 
hoops, soap, and plank, and was the property of William Marshall, jr. 

IV. The loss to William Marshall, jr., by reason of the seizure and condemnation of 
the Farmer was as follows: 

Value of the cargo $5, 395. 57 

One-half value of vessel 1, 545. 00 

One-half freight earnings ' 950. 00 

Premiums of insurance (on actual value of vessel, etc.) 1, 027. 75 



Amounting in all to 8, 918. 32 

Deduct insurance received .. 6, 500. 00 



Net loss . 2, 418. 32 

V. January 14, 1800, said William Marshall, jr., effected in the office of Joseph Tay- 
lor insurance on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $6,500 ($2,000 on vessel and $4,500 
on cargo), paying therefor a premium of 17 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the 
following persons, who, as far as they have appeared in this court, were citizens of the 
United States, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively: 

Benjamin Cobb $500. 00 

Ebenezer Francis 500. 00 

Nicholas Gilman 1, 000. 00 

Leech & Hilton 300. 00 

Daniel Sargent 500. 00 

John C . Jones 500. 00 

Samuel.W. Pomeroy 500. 00 

Cornelius Durant 500. 00 

Benjamin Homer 500. 00 

Thomas Amory 700. 00 

James Scott 500. 00 

Stephen Codman 500. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 689' 

Thereafter, Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $6,500, 
being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, but the one-half of the vessel 
so insured herein being only of the value of $1,545, there was an overinsurance on 
the same to the amount of $455. - The losses to said underwriters on this policy were 
therefore as follows: 

Benjamin Cobb $465. 00 

Ebenezer Francis 465. 00 

Nicholas Gilman 930. 00 

Leech & Hilton 279. 00 

Daniel Sargent 465. 00 

John C. Jones 465. 00 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 465. 00 

Cornelius Durant 465. 00 

Benjamin Homer 465. 00 

Thomas Amory 651. 00 

James Scott 465. 00 

Stephen Codman 465. 00 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Farmer, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States: and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: • 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., two thousand 
four hundred and eighteen dollars and thirty-two cents $2, 418. 32 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, four hundred and 
sixty-five dollars 465. 00 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, nine hundred and 
thirty dollars 930. 00 

Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, four hundred and 

sixty-five dollars 465. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, four hundred and sixty- 
five dollars 465. 00 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, four hundred and 
sixty-five dollars 465. 00 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, four hundred and sixty- 
five dollars 465. 00 

Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, four hundred and sixty- 
five dollars '.. 465. 00 

William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, six hundred and fifty- 
one dollars 651. 00' 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, four hundred and sixty-five 

dollars 465. 00 

Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, four hundred and 
sixty-five dollars 465. 00 

Amounting in all to seven thousand seven hundred and nineteen 

dollars and thirty-two cents 7, 719. 32 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 44 



690 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

Ebenezer Francis and Leech ifc Hilton, underwriters on the policy of insurance 
herein, are not in court. 

Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim 
other than for those who underwrote the insurance in said Taylor's office, as herein- 
before set forth. 

Benjamin Hooper, the other half owner of the vessel and freight, is not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, 1907. 

£seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER FRIENDSHIP. 

{Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Sta/t. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Friendship, William Blanchard, master.] 
No. of . F * 

i case. Claimant. 

230. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
3328. Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. 
3517. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, v. The United States. 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

conclusions of fact. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Friendship, William Blanchard, master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage November 11, 1799, from Norfolk, Va., bound to Tobago and Trinidad. While 
peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas, December 24, 1799, 
by the French privateer Le Soliel, Captain Lafitte, who took from on board the Friend- 
ship her master, supercargo, and three of her crew and carried them to St. Bartholo- 
anew, where they were liberated. Vessel and cargo afterwards condemned February 
:8, 1800, by the tribunal of prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, upon grounds which 
•do not appear. 

II. The Friendship was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 101f| tons 
burthen; built at Kingston, Mass., in the year 1792, and owned by William Blanchard, 
Jeremiah Stimson, and Thomas Callender, each one-third. 

III. The cargo of the Friendship at the time of capture consisted of lumber, biscuit, 
■and grain, and was owned by Laurie & Telfer, of Norfolk. The value of said cargo does 
not appear. 

IV. The losses to the owners of vessel and freight by reason of said seizure and con- 
demnation were as follows: 

Value of vessel $3, 622. 00 

Freight earnings : 1, 700. 00 

Premiums of insurance paid ■ 778. 00 

Amounting in all to 6, 100. 00 

Deduct insurance received 6, 100. 00 

V. October 26, 1799, Jeremiah Stimson and Thomas Callender effected in the office 
of Joseph Taylor, insurance broker, of Boston, insurance on two-thirds of the vessel 
and freight to the amount of $4,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 691 

policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, each in the sum set oppo- 
site their names., viz: 

John C. Jones $700. 00 

Benjamin Homer 500. 00 

Cornelius Durant 500. 00 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 800. 00 

James Scott. 500. 00 

Nicholas Gilnian 500. 00 

Jacob Sheafe. 500. 00 

Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $4,000, 
being in full for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. 

VI. November 27, 1799, George Blanchard, on behalf of William Blanchard, effected 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker, in the city of Boston, insurance on 
one-third of vessel and freight to the amount of $2,100, paying therefor a premium of 
18 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, each in 
the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

William Smith $1, 100. 00 

Stephen Gorham 500. 00 

Tuthill Hubbart 500. 00 

Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$2,100, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50, to him paid by 
Peter G. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and 
disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, assigned 
to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him 
as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

April 4, 1808, Tuthill Hubbart, in consideration of $60,000, to him paid by Peter C. 
Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvan- 
tages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks 
all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter 
in the office of said Brooks. 

November 21, 1801, Stephen Gorham, in consideration of $2,986.65, to him paid by 
Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and 
disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, assigned 
to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as 
an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Friendship, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government piior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand one hundred 
dollars , $2, 100 

Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, five hundred dollars 500 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, seven hundred dollars . . . 700 
Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, five hundred dollars 500 



692 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, five hundred dollars $500 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy , eight hundred dollars . . 800 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, five hundred dollars 500 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, five hundred dollars 500 

Amounting in all to six thousand one hundred dollars 6, 100 

The owners of the vessel, freight, and cargo are not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG DOVE. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Dove, William McN. Watts, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

291. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. 
1900. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
3010. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Thomas Geyer, v. The United States. 
3493. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assist- 
ant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

conclusions op pact. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Dove, William McN. Watts, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Edenton, N. C, on or about May 4, 1798, bound to St. Croix. While peacefully pur- 
suing said voyage she was seized on the high seas May 29, 1798, by the French privateer 
Neptune, John Jacque, master, taken to St. Martins, and afterwards condemned as 
good prize June 22, 1798, by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the island 
of Guadeloupe, whereby a loss arose on both vessel and cargo to the owners thereof. 

The sole ground of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was that the vessel's r6le 
d'e"quipage was not signed by a marine officer. 

II. The Dove was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 94 14/95 tons 
burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1796, and owned solely by Thomas Geyer, 
a citizen of the United States residing in Boston. 

III. The cargo of the Dove consisted of shingles, boards, beef, fish, pork, flour, 
Indian corn, meal, hams, apple sauce, boots, shoes, dry goods, and live hogs, and was 
owned by said Thomas Geyer and William McN. Watts, master of the vessel. 

IV. The losses to said Thomas Geyer, as far as shown by the evidence, by reason of 
the seizure and condemnation of the Dove were as follows: 

Loss on vessel $2, 000. 00 

Value of his portion of cargo 3, 301. 75 

Freight earnings 1, 183. 00 

Premium of insurance paid 1, 500. 00 

Amounting in all to 7, 984. 75 

Deduct insurance received . . . .■ 5, 000. 00 

\ Netloss* 2,984.75 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 693 

It appears from the evidence that subsequent to the sale of the Dove under the decree 
of the prize court she was reregistered at Boston in the name of said Thomas Geyer and 
one Frederick W. Geyer, jr., on December 6, 1798. It likewise appears that the under- 
writers who insured the vessel through their agent at Boston, where said insurance was 
effected, on December 12, 1798, six days after such reregistration, paid the said Thomas 
Geyer the sum of $2,000 as a loss arising thereon by reason of her seizure and condemna- 
tion by the French. The loss on said vessel by reason of the premises was the sum in 
which the said Thomas Geyer was reimbursed by said underwriters. 
' V. April 25, 1798, Thomas Geyer effected insurance on said vessel and cargo in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $5,000, viz, on the vessel in the sum of $2,000 and 
on cargo in the sum of $3,000, paying therefor a premium of 30 per cent, by a policy 
underwritten as follows: 

Crowell Hatch : $1, 000 

Tuthill Hubbart .• 1, 000 

William Smith „ 1, 000 

Nathaniel Fellowes '. 1, 000 

David Greene 1, 000 

December 12, 1798, said Crooks, as agent, duly paid said assured the sum of $5,000 
in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

June 12, 1798, Samuel Harris, as agent of William McN. Watts, effected insurance on 
a portion of said cargo in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $1,000, paying there- 
for a premium of 30 per cent, by a policy underwritten as follows: 

Thomas Amory $500 

Nicholas Gilman 500 

June 24, 1799, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of 
$1,000 in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The property at risk was of the value of at least the sum for which insured. All of 
the above-named underwriters were citizens of the United States. 

April 4, 1808, the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of 
$60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of any and all liabilities 
and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to 
said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him in the 
office of said Brooks. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages 
arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his 
right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the 
office of said Brooks. 

December 23, 1801, David Greene, for and in consideration of $6,000 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages 
arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all 
his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the 
office of said Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Dove, as get forth in 
the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty be- 
tween the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 



694 ALLOWANCE. OP CEKTAIET CLAIMS. 

France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars $1, 000. 00 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, three thousand dollars.. 3,000.00 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand 

dollars 1, 000. 00 

William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 

Amounting in all to six thousand dollars 6, 000. 00 

The defendants have filed a counterclaim alleging that the original claimant, Thomas 
Geyer, was indebted to the United States in the sum of $5,134.59 on certain unpaid 
custom-house bonds. No record of payment thereof has been produced from the 
collector's office at Boston. 

No one is in court claiming for the invoice of merchandise shipped by Samuel Harris 
on said vessel and consigned to William McNeil Watts, master of said vessel, said mer- 
chandise being separate and distinct from that owned by Thomas Geyer. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER NEPTUNE. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1. Supplement to- 
ll. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Neptune, Comfort Bird, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

.201. Brooks, Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 
521. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes,'^. The United States. 
1502. James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, v. The 

United States. 
1934. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
2227. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Abraham Touro, v. The United States. 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, v. The United States. 

William Smith Carter, administrator of William Smith, v. The United States. 

John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 
3756. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, v. The United States. 
5269. Samuel Abbott Fowle, administrator of George Makepeace, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, 
Frank W. Hackett, and Charles W. Clagett, esqrs., and the United States, defend- 
ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice. 
John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General, J. A. Van Orsdel . 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Neptune, Comfort Bird, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
March 27, 1800, from Boston, bound to St. Bartholomew. While peacefully pursuing 
said voyage she was seized on the high seas April 24, 1800, by the French privateer 
Unique, Lafitte, commander, who took from the Neptune her master, mate, and two 
men and detained them on board the privateer until the latter arrived at Basseterre, 
Guadeloupe, on the 5th day of May following, when they were put in prison. While 
in the possession of the privateer the Neptune was robbed of eight bales of dry goods, 
some butter, candles, soap, oil, shoes, hams, potatoes, crackers, a trunk of ladies' 
s andals, a trunk of Indian cottons, gloves, etc., composing a part of her cargo, and 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 695 

all the ship's papers were carried away by the privateer. A prize master and crew 
were then placed on the Neptune with orders to carry her to Basseterre, Guadeloupe, 
and while so proceeding she was retaken on the 3d day of the said month of May by 
the English privateer Peggy, Peter Christian, commander, and carried to St. John 
on the island of Antigua, and vessel and cargo condemned, by the court of vice-ad- 
miralty there sitting, to pay a salvage of one-half the true value thereof, together with 
all costs and charges. 

II. The Neptune was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 53f| tons, built 
in Massachusetts in the year 1784, and owned solely by Israel Jenkins and Calvin 
Turner, citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Neptune at the time of seizure consisted of beef, hearts, bread, 
brandy, cheese, fish, dry goods, lumber, shingles, staves, pork, bacon, soap, shoes, 
and wine, and was owned by George Makepeace, Martin Blake, Charles Sigourney r 
Freeborn Sisson, Asa Hammond, I. & I. Jenkins, John Fowle, Nathan Tufts, and 
Comfort Bird, all of whom were citizens of the United States, and by Eben Francis,. 
Henry Lee, Augustus Lovett, Ebenezer Barker, and Samuel Bright, whose American 
citizenship is not established. 

IV. The loss suffered by George Makepeace, by reason of the seizure of the Nep- 
tune, was as follows, viz: 

Value of 4 bales dry goods and 179 pounds cheese $1, 509. 86 

Premium of insurance paid 180. 00 

Amounting in all to 1, 689. 86 

Deduct insurance received 1, 200. 00 

Net loss 489. 86 

V. May 13, 1800, George Makepeace effected in the office of Peter C. Brooks insur- 
ance on his merchandise in the sum of $1,200, paying therefor a premium of 15 per 
cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United 
States, each in the sum set opposite his name, A'iz: 

John C. Jones $600. 00 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 600. 00 

Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of 
$1,200, being in full for a total loss arising by reason of the robbery by the French 
and payment of salvage. 

April 9, 1800, Israel Jenkins, Comfort Bird, John Fowle, and Nathan Tufts effected 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks insurance on the vessel and their merchandise in the 
sum of $4,000, apportioned as follows: For Isreal Jenkins, $2,330; for Comfort Bird r 
$1,200; for John Fowle, $270; for Nathan Tufts, $200. The premium paid was 20 per 
cent, the policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United 
States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: 

Crowell Hatch $1, 000. 00 

Tuthill Hubbart 1, 000. 00 

Cornelius Durant 1, 000. 00 

Benjamin Homer 500. 00 

Nathaniel Fellowes 500. 00 

Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of 
$3,494.73, but this payment included $88.20, the* value of the deck load of lumber 
owned by Comfort Bird and Isreal Jenkins and thrown overboard in a storm and for 
which loss the French could not be held responsible. The underwriters on this 
policy are therefore entitled to recover but $3,406.53 by reason of the seizure by the 
French, being 85.163 per cent of the amount underwritten by them, respectively. 
Their loss on this policy are therefore as follows, viz : 

Crowell Hatch $851. 63 

Tuthill Hubbart 851. 63 

Cornelius Durant 851. 63 

Benjamin Homer 425. 82 

Nathaniel Fellowes 425. 82- 

The value of the property at risk exceeded the amount for which insured, and the 
loss paid by the underwriters arose from the robbery by the French and payment of 
salvage. 



696 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

March 21, 1800, Charles Sigourney and Martin Blake procured from the Boston 
Marine Insurance Company insurance on their merchandise in the sum of $1,300, 
paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent. Thereafter the Boston Marine Insurance 
Company duly paid the said insured SI. 300. being in full for a total loss by reason of the 
robbery by the French and payment of salvage. The value of the property at risk 
exceeded the amount for which insured. 

March 31, 1800, Asa Hammond effected in the office of Abraham Touro insurance on 
his merchandise in the sum of SI. 200. paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent, said 
policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each 
in the sum set opposite his name, viz: 

William Smith $600. 00 

Tuthill Hubbart 600. 00 

Thereafter Abraham Touro, as agent, paid the insured the sum of $1,064 for a loss by 
reason of the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. The value of the prop- 
erty at risk exceeded the sum for which insured. 

Each of the above-named underwriters suffered a loss of $532.00 on this policy. 

April 10, 1800. Freeborn Sisson effected in the office of Abraham Touro insurance on 
his merchandise in the sum of S300, paying therefor a premium of 12^ per cent, said 
policy being underwritten by the following person, a citizen of the United States: 

John McLean $300. 00 

Thereafter Abraham Touro, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $266 for 
a loss on this policy by reason of the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. 
The value of the property at risk exceeded the sum for which insured. 

The insurance alleged to have been effected in the office of Abraham Touro by 
Ebenezer Barker, Samuel Bright, and William Howard, on which Charles Paine and 
Francis Greene were underwriters, is not established by competent evidence. 

April 4, 1808, the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, in consideration of $60,000 to 
them paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any 
liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, 
assigned to the said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done 
by the said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. 

January 7, 1804, Cornelius Durant, for and in consideration of $181.77 to him paid by 
Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and 
disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said 
Brooks all his. right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an under- 
writer in the office of said Brooks. 

July 23, 1805, Benjamin Homer, in consideration of $5,000 to him paid by Peter C. 
Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvan- 
tages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks 
all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter 
in the office of said Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Neptune, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in then representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
.have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

COXCLUSIOXS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 697 

France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States : • 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter 0. Brooks, two thousand one hun- 
dred and twenty -nine dollars and eight cents : $2, 129. 08 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, eight hundred and fifty- 
one dollars and sixty-three cents 851. 63 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, four hundred 
and twenty-five dollars and eighty- two cents 425. 82 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, six hundred dollars. . . 600. 00 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Poineroy, six hundred dollars. . 600. 00 

James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, one 

thousand three hundred dollars \, 300. 00 

William S. Carter, administrator of William Smith, five hundred and thirty- 
two dollars 532. 00 

John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, five hundred and thirty- 
two dollars 532. 00 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, two hundred and sixty- 
six dollars 266. 00 

Samuel Abbott Fowle. administrator of George Makepeace, four hundred 
and eighty-nine dollars and eighty-six cents 489. 86 

Amounting in all to seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-six 

dollars and thirty-nine cents 7, 726. 39 

The owners of the vessel and cargo (with the exception of George Makepeace) are 
not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER SALLY, DAVIS, MASTER. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 18S5; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Sally, Timothy Davis, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1628. Charles F. Trask, administrator of Samuel Babson, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assist- 
ant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Sally, Timothy Davis, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Guernsey, bound to Dieppe, arriving in the roadstead of the latter place on the 30th 
day of March, 1797, and on the next day, while peacefully lying in the said road- 
stead, was seized by the French privateers Vengeur, Intrepide, Eminchet, and Auda- 
cieux, and thereafter condemned as good prize for the benefit of the captors by decree 
of the tribunal of commerce at Dieppe, dated June 5, 1797. * 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree, were as follows: 
That the neutral ownership of the cargo was not proved; 
That the vessel's role d'equipage was not in good form. 

II. The Sally was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 57 45/95 tons 
burthen, built in the State of Massachusetts prior to the 16th day of May, 1789, and 
was owned solely by Samuel Babson, a citizen of the United States, residing at Glou- 
cester, Mass. 



698 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

III. The cargo of the Sally at the date of seizure consisted of 50 puncheons of brandy 
and 60 casks of wine, and was owned by Alexander Fraser, of Boston. The value of 
the cargo does not appear, nor is any claim filed therefor. 

IV. The loss to. Samuel Babson by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the 
Sally was as follows: 

Value of the vessel $1, 650 

Freight earnings 950 

Amounting in all to 2, 600 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Sally, 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. This was not a claim 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d 
of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of 
the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned, except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Charles F. Trask, administrator of Samuel Babson, two thousand six hun- 
dred dollars '. |2, 600. 00 

Amounting in all to twenty-six hundred dollars. 
The owner of the cargo is not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SHIP SARAH. 

[Court of Claims. French, spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel ship Sarah, James Breck, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

934. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. 

James S. English, administrator of Thomas English, v. The United States. 

Arthur P. Gushing, administrator of Marston Watson, v. The United States. 

Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, v. The United States. 

Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 

Gordon Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, v. The United States. 
3346. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 

Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe. v. The United States. 
3651. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. 

Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, v. The United States. 

Henry W. Edes, administrator of John May, v. The United States. 



AULOWANCB OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 699 

No. of 

case. Claimant. 

3651. John 0. Shaw, administrator of Josiah Knapp, v. The United States. 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. 
H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing, v. The United States. 
Jonathan I. Bowditch, administrator of Benjamin Pickman, v. The United 

States. 
Arthur T. Lyman, administrator oi Theodore Lyman, v. The United States. 
Charles K. Cobb, administrator of John Codman, v. The United States. 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 
Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stephens, survivor of the firm of 

John and Thomas Stephens, v. The United States. 
John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 
Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 
W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 21st day of October, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdcl. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The ship Sarah, whereof Joseph Breck was master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
from Norfolk, Va., August 24, 1799, bound for London, England. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage the Sarah was seized on the high seas on the 17th day of October, 
following, by the French privateer Vengeance, Captain Grandideau, and a prize master 
and crew placed on board with instructions to conduct her to France. While in the 
possession of the French the Sarah was robbed of some hawsers, coils of rope, a top- 
mast, medicine chest, and sundry portions of tobacco, the last composing a part of her 
cargo. 

On the 22d day of said month of October the Sarah was retaken from the French by 
the British ship of war Cambrian, under the command of the Hon. Arthur Kayc Legge, 
and conducted to Plymouth, in England, and said vessel condemned by the British 
admiralty court to pay a salvage of one-eighth, exclusive of costs and charges. 

II. The Sarahw&s a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 310 tons burthen, 
built in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1795, and owned solely by Joseph Rus- 
sell, jr., and Patrick Jeffrey, citizens of the United States residing m Boston. 

III. The cargo of the Sarah consisted of tobacco and staves, but it does not appear 
who were the owners thereof, nor what was the value of the same. 

IV. August 9, 1799, said Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell effected insurance on 
said vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker, in the sum of $12,000, 
paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent by a policy underwi'itten by the following 
persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite 
his name, viz: 

John C. Jones $1, 000 Marston Watson $1 , 000 

Cornelius Durant 1,000 Benjamin Bussey 1,000 

Tuthill Hubbart 1,000 Samuel W. Pomeroy 1,000 

Benjamin Cobb 1,000 j John Welles 500 

John McLean 1,000 James Prince 500 

William Smith 1,000 | Samuel Dexter 500 

Thomas English 500 | Stephen Gorham , 1,000 

Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,013.60 
as and for a loss arising by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of said 
underwriters of 16.78 per cent of the amount underwritten by him. 

September 9, 1799, said Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell effected insurance on 
the freight of said vessel in the office of Joseph Taylor, insurance broker, in the sum 
of $12,000, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the 



700 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



following persons, all of whom, were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set 
opposite his name, viz: 



Benjamin Pickman $500 

Theodore Lyman 500 

John Codman 1, 000 

Nicholas Gilman 1, 000 

Jacob Sheafe 500 

John & Thomas Stephens 600 

Tuthill Hubbart 500 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 1, 000 

Daniel D. Rogers 800 



Stephen Codman $500 

James Scott 500 

Daniel Sargent 700 

Israel Thorndike 500 

Benjamin Homer 500 

John C. Jones 500 

John May 500 

Josiah Knapp 500 

Thomas Amory 1, 000 

Thomas Cushing 400 

Thereafter said Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,992, as and 
for a loss arising by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of said under- 
writers of 16.60 per cent of the amount underwritten by him. 

V. After said payment, to wit, April 4, 1808, the administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, 
for and in consideration of $60,000. to them paid by Peter G. Brooks, and the assump- 
tion of all responsibiltiy of said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, 
assigned to said Brooks all the interest of said Hubbart in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, January 7, 1804, for and in consideration of $181.70 and 
the assumption of all responsibility of Cornelius Durant as an underwriter in the office 
of said Brooks, the said Durant assigned to the said Brooks all his interest in said 
business. 

After said payment, to wit, February 8, 1892, for and in consideration of $3,000 and 
the assumption of all responsibility of John McLean as an underwriter in the office of 
Peter C. Brooks, Isaiah Knapp, executor, etc., of John McLean, assigned to said 
Brooks all the interest of said McLean in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 16 1801 for and in consideration of $3,715.50 
and the assumption of all responsibility of William Smith as an underwriter in the 
office of said Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000 
and the assumption of all responsibility of Benjamin Bussey as an underwriter in the 
office of said Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit. February 7, 1804, for and in consideration of $4,900 and 
the assumption of all responsibility of S. W. Pomeroy as an underwriter in the office 
of said Brooks, said Pomeroy assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 
and the assumption of all responsibility of Stephen Gorham as an underwriter in the 
office of said Brooks, said Gorham assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said 
business. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the ship Sarah as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819. and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 



CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 701 

of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand one hun- 
dred and seventh-four dollars and sixty cents $1, 174. 60 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, two hundred and fifty 

dollars and eighty cents 250. 80 

Francis M. Boutwell. administrator of Benjamin Cobb, one hundred and 

sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents 167. 80 

James S. Eriglish. administrator of Thomas English, eighty-three dollars 

and ninety cents 83. 90 

Arthur P. Gushing, administrator of Marston Watson, one hundred and 

sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents 167 . 80 

Walter Hunnewelk administrator of John Welles, eighty-three dollars and 

ninety cents 83. 90 

Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, eighty-three dollars and 

ninety cents 83. 90 

Gordon Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, eighty-three dollars and 

ninety cents 83. 90 

Xathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, one hundred and 

sixteen dollars and twenty cents 116. 20 

Daniel W. Waldron administrator of Jacob Sheafe. eighty-three dollars. . . 83.00 

Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman. eighty-three dollars. . 83.00 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, eighty-three dollars 83. 00 

Edward I. Browne administrator of Israel Thorndike. eighty- three dollars. 83.00 

Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, eighty-three dollars ... 83. 00 

Henry W. Edes administrator of John May. eighty-three dollars 83. 00 

John O. Shaw, administrator of Josiah Knapp. eighty-three. dollars 83. 00 

William Ropes Trask. administrator of Thomas Aniory. one hundred and 

sixty-six dollars .' 166. 00 

H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing. sixty-six dollars and 

forty cents 66. 40 

Jonathan I. Bowditch. administrator of Benjamin Pickman. eightv-three 

dollars 83. 00 

Arthur T. I Annan, administrator of Theodore Lyman, eighty-three dollars. . 83. 00 
Charles K. Cobb, administrator of John Codman. one hundred and sixty- 
six dollars 166. 00 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, one hundred and 

sixty-six dollars 166. 00 

Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stephens for and on behalf of the 

firm of John and Thomas Stephens, ninety-nine dollars and sixty cents. . 99. 60 

John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, eighty-three dollars 83. 00 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, one hundred and 

sixty-six dollars - 166. 00 

W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, one hundred and 

L. thirty-two dollars and eighty cents 132. 80 

Amounting in all to four thousand and five dollars and sixty cents. . 4, 005. 60 
No person claiming to represent the vessel and cargo owners have appeared herein. 

By the Court. 
Filed October 28. 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER SYLVANUS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Sylvanus, Edward D. Baker, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2230. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Abraham Touro, v. The United States. 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. 
3644. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

Henry Parkman. administrator of John Lovett, v. The United States. 



702 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

No. of 

ease. Claimant. 

3644. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Horner, v. The United States. 
Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. 
John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 

3645. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

3646. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 
Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United State?. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

2403. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 
4193. Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- General, through his assistant 
in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq.,, with whom was Assistant At- 
torney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Sylvanup, Edward D. Baker, master, sailed on a commercial voy- 
age on or about April 27, 1800, from the island of Martinique bound to Boston. While 
peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on May 1, 1800, by the French pri- 
vateer L' Industrie, Captain Gavotte, and carried into the island of Guadaloupe. 

May 4, 1800 (Floreal 15, year 8), said vessel and cargo were condemned by the 
tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, on the following 
grounds : 

"That the master of the vessel has no role d'equipage but simply an agreement 
with his crew. 

"That the vessel had taken on board at Martinique, an English island, a cargo 
of molasses, sugar, and coffee of the growth of said island." 

II. The schooner Sylvanus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 
G9f| tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1798, and was owned by Edward 
D. Baker, Baker Baker, Scollay Baker, Calvin Turner, and Ichabod Thomas, all 
citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Sylvanus at the time of capture consisted of molasses, coffee, 
and sugar., and was owned by William P. Smith and Edward D. Baker, citizens of 
the United States. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Sylvanus were 
as follows: 

Value of vessel $2, 760. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 150. 00 

Value of cargo -. . 5, 207. 24 

Premiums of insurance paid 1, 196. 00 

Amounting in all to •. 30, 313. 24 

Deduct insurance received 8, 600. 00 

Net loss 1, 713. 24 

V. February 24, 1800, Edward D. Baker, Baker Baker, Scollay Baker, Calvin 
Turner, and Ichabod Thomas, owners of the vessel, effected insurance thereon in the 
office of Joseph Taylor, insurance broker of Boston, in the sum of $2,500, paying there- 
for a premium of 15 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, 
each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

Daniel Sargent $600. 00 

John C. Jones 500. 00 

Stephen Codman 700. 00 

Nicholas Gilman 700. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 703 

October 15, 1800, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$2,500, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

VI. February 24, 1800, Edward D. Baker, owner of certain property on board said 
vessel, effected insurance on the same in the office of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $700, 
paying therefor a premium of 8 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the follow- 
ing person, viz: 

John C. Jones :...■. $700. 00 

Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $700, 
being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

VII. February 26, 1800, William P. Smith, owner of the cargo, effected insurance on 
said goods in the office of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $4,500, paying therefor a pre- 
mium of 15 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in 
the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

Israel Thorndike $600. 00 

John Lovett 300. 00 

Tuthill Hubbart 800. 00 

John C. Jones 500. 00 

Benjamin Homer 500. 00 

Cornelius Durant 1, 000. 00 

Jeffrey & Russell 800. 00 

August 28, 1800, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$4,500, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The firm of Jeffrey & Russell was composed of Joseph Russell and Patrick Jeffrey, of 
which firm said Russell was the survivor. 

VIII. June 10, 1800, William P. Smith, owner of the cargo, effected insurance on said 
goods in the office of Abraham Touro, insurance broker of Boston, in the sum of $3,000, 
paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the follow- 
ing-named persons each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

Crowell Hatch $500. 00 

Cornelius Durant 500. 00 

William Smith 500.00 

John C . Jones 500. 00 

James Scott. 500. 00 

Samuel W . Pomeroy 500. 00 



February 19, 1801, said Touro, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of ! 
as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, the said William P. Smith, having been 
previously insured to the value of his said property less said sum of $900, the same 
being a loss to Crowell Hatch, the first underwriter on said policy, in the sum of $500, 
and to Cornelius Durant, the second underwriter thereon, in the sum of $400. William 
Smith, John C- Jones, James Scott, and Samuel W. Pomeroy suffered no loss on this 
policy. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Sylvanus, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to ratification of the convention between the United States 
and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said 
claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said 
treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 



704 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums 
from the United States: 

Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargeant, six hundred dollars. $600. 00 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand seven 

hundred dollars 1, 700. 00 

Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, seven hundred dollars. . 700. 00 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman. seven hundred dollars. . 700. 00 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, six hundred dollars. . 600. 00 

Henry Parlanan, administrator of John Lovett. three hundred dollars 300. 00 

John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, eight hundred dollars. . . 800. 00 

Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, five hundred dollars < 500. 00 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, one thousand four hun- 
dred dollars 1, 400. 00 

Chandler Robbins. administrator of Joseph Russell, eight hundred dolllars. . 800. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Amounting in all to eight thousand six hundred dollars 8, 600. 00 

The owners of the vessel, freight, and cargo are not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER VENUS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Venus, Benjamin Hooper, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

879. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John. C. Jones, v. The United States. 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. 
2066. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
3060. Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, -v. The United States. 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, v. The United States. 
3687. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, v. The United States. 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 

Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, v. The United States. 

William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Moses Brown, v. The United States. 

Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 
5027. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Charles W. Claggett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with 
whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I: The schooner Venus, Benjamin Hooper, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
June 6, 1799, from Boston bound for Barbadoes. While peacefully pursuing said 
voyage she was seized on the high seas, July 2, 1799, by the French privateer Italie 
Conquise, and conducted to Port Liberty, and afterwards, to wit, July 10, 1799, both 
vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize for the benefit of the captors by the 
tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe, whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners thereof . 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows, viz: 

"That the neutral ownership of the cargo was not sufficiently proven. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



705 



"That the vessel carried no rdle d Equipage." 

II. The Venus was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 110| | tons burthen, 
built in Massachusetts in the year 1795, owned by William Marshall, jr., and Benjamin 
Hooper in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third, respectively, and in the same 
proportion they were the owners of the cargo of said vessel at the date of seizure, con- 
sisting of beef, flour, and other provisions, tobacco, and lumber, the reasonable value of 
which vessel was at the time at least $4,500 and the value of said cargo at the time was 
at least $8,900, on which insurance was effected as stated below. Both of said owners 
were citizens of the United States, residing in Boston. 

III. June 3, 1799, Benjamin Hooper effected through the'office of Peter C. Brooks 
insurance on one-third of the vessel and cargo in the sum of $5,000, paying therefor a 
premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of 
whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sums set opposite his name, viz: 



John C. Jones $1, 000 

Crowell Hatch 1, 000 

Thomas English 500 

Daniel D. Roarers 500 



Benjamin Cobb $500 

Benjamin Homer 500 

Tuthill Hubbart 1, 000 



Thereafter the said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $5,000, as 
and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

June 4, 1799, William Marshall, jr., effected through the office of Joseph Taylor, 
insurance on two-thirds of the vessel and cargo in the sum of $8,400, paying therefor 
a premium of 17 J per cent: the policy was underwritten by the following-named per- 
sons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his 
name, viz: 



Jacob Sheafe $500 

Thomas Amory 500 

Moses Brown ' 500 

■ Stephen Codman 400 

John C. Jones 900 

Tuthill Hubbart 400 



John McLean $1, 000 

Daniel D. Rogers 500 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 1, 000 

Nicholas Gilman 1, 000 

John and Thomas Stevens 600 

Benjamin Cobb 500 

James Scott 600 \ 

Thereafter the said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the insured the sum of $8,400, 
as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The firm of John and Thomas Stevens was composed solely of John Stevens and 
Thomas Stevens, the last named being the surviving partner of the firm. 

October 19, 1804, Daniel D. Rogers, for and in consideration of $3,400 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities 
and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned 
to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as 
an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. 

July 23, 1805, Benjamin Homer, for and in consideration of $5,000 to him paid by 
Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and 
disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said 
Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an under- 
writer in the office of said Brooks. 

April 4, 1808, the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of 
$60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any 
and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart in 
the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and 
to all insurance done by the said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered # loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Venus, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their respective capacity, are the owners' of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
S. Rep. 382, 60-1 45 



706 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty, in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are t entitled^to^the following 
sums from the United Statee 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand dollars $2, 000.00 

James S. English, administrator of Thomas English, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, five hundred dollars. . 500.00 
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, one thousand dol- 
lars 1, 000. 00 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, one thousand dollars. 1, 000. 00 
W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, five hundred dol- 
lars 500. 00 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, one thousand dollars. 1, 000. 00 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, one thousand dollars. 1, 000. 00 
Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, for and on behalf of the 

firm of John and Thomas Stevens, six hundred dollars 600. 00 

William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 

Edward I. Brown, administrator of Moses Brown, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, four hundred dollars. . 400. 00 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand nine hun- 
dred dollars 1, 900. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, four hundred dol- 
lars 400. 00 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, six hundred dollars 600. 00 

Amounting in all to thirteen thousand four hundred dollars 13, 400. 00 

Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim other 
than in favor of those who underwrote the insurance effected through the office of said 
Taylor, as hereinbefore set forth. 

The owners of the vessel, cargo, and freight are not in court. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER SYREN. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 
R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Syren, Jared Arnold, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

3087. Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, v. The United States. 

3087. David Stewart, administrator of William Wood, jr., v. The United States. 

3409. Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John McFadon. Henry W. Ellicott, 
administrator of William McFadon, v. The United States. James Lawson, 
administrator of Richard Lawson, v. The United States. 

4848. David Stewart, administrator of Henry Payson, v. The United States. 

2555. Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, v. The United States. 

5559. William H. S. Elting, administrator of Peter Elting, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Frank P. Clark, William T. S. Curtis, and Theo- 
dore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through 
his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was 
Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Syren, Jared Arnold master, sailed on a commercial voyage in the 
latter part of September, 1798, from Norfolk, Va. , bound to Laguira. While peacefully 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 707 

pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about October 22, 1798, by 
the French privateer L' Amour de la Patrie, Captain Souloumide, who conducted said 
vessel to Basseterre, Guadaloupe, and she was thereafter on October 26, 1798 (5 Brumire, 
year 7), condemned by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at that place on the 
following ground : 

"That the crew of the Syren was composed of eight men, two of whom were Portu- 
guese and one an Englishman, enemies of the French Republic." 

II. The Syren was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 113*§ tons burthen; 
built in the State of Massachusetts in year 1794, and owned by the following persons: 
Benjamin Williams, one-fourth; William Wood, jr., one-fourth; Henry Payson, one- 
fourth; and William McFadon & Co. (composed of William McFadon, John McFadon, 
and Richard Lawson), one-fourth. 

III. The cargo of the Syren at the time of seizure consisted of flour, and was of the 
value of $6,128.33. Said cargo was owned by Benjamin Williams, William Wood, jr., 
Henry Payson, and William McFadon & Co. in the same proportions as the vessel. 

IV. The loss to the owners of the vessel and cargo by reason of the seizure and 
condemnation aforesaid was as follows: 

Value of vessel $4. 520. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 610. 00 

Value of cargo. 6, 128. 33 

Premium of insurance paid 250. 00 

Amounting in all to 12, 508. 33 

Deduct insurance received 1, 716. 80 

Net loss 10, 791. 53 

V. October 24, 1798, William McFadon & Co. effected in the city of New York insur- 
ance on the cargo in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 12£, said policy 
being underwritten by the firm of Church & Del afield to the full amount of said 
policy. 

Thereafter, to wit, June 10, 1799, said Church & Delafield duly paid the said assured 
the sum of $1,716.80, being for a loss by reason of the premises. 

VI. Benjamin Williams was the owner of one-fourth of vessel and cargo. His losses 
were as follows: 

One fourth value of vessel $1, 130. 00 

One-fourth freight earnings 402. 50 

One-fourth value of cargo 1, 532. 08 

Total 3, 064. 58 

Henry Payson and William Wood, jr., were likewise each the owner of one-fourth 
of vessel and cargo, and their losses therefore each amount to the sum of $3,064.58, as 
above. 

William McFadon & Co. were the owners of one-fourth of vessel and cargo. Their 
losses were as follows. 

One-fourth value of vessel $1, 130. 00 

One-fourth freight earnings 402. 50 

One-fourth value of cargo : 1, 532. 09 

Premium of insurance paid 250. 00 

Amounting in all to 3, 314. 59 

Deduct insurance received 1, 716. 80 

Net loss to firm 1, 597 . 79 

The loss to said firm of William McFadon & Co., being the sum of $1,597.79, the indi- 
vidual loss of said members is as follows: 

John McFadon $532. 59 

William McFadon 532. 60 

Richard Lawson 532. 60 

On April 10, 1839, John McFadon, being largely indebted to the United States, for 
and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars to him paid by the United States, assigned 
and transferred to the United States all his right, title, and interest in and to any 
claim for indemnity for spoliations by the French prior to 1800, that he, the said John 
McFadon, may have against the said United States. 

No recovery can therefore be had herein for the estate of said John McFadon. 



708 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

VII. The firm of Church & Delafield was composed of John Delafield and John 
Barker Church, of which John Delafield was the surviving partner. 

The claimants have produced letters of ad ministration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Syren, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1808. They were not claims grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty 
between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were ille- 
gal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefore upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, three thousand 
and sixty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents $3, 064. 58 

David Stewart, administrator of William Wood, jr., three thousand and 
sixty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents 3, 064. 58 

David Stewart, administrator of Henry Payson, three thousand and sixty- 
four dollars and fifty-eight cents 3, 064. 58 

Henry W. Ellicott, administrator of William McFadon, five hundred and 
thirty-two dollars and' sixty cents 532. 60 

James Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, five hundred and thirty- 
two dollars and sixty cents 532. 60 

Richard Dalafield, administrator of John Dalafield, surviving partner of 
Church & Dalafield, one thousand seven hundred and sixteen dollars 
and eighty cents 1, 716. 80 

Amounting in all to eleven thousand nine hundred and seventy-five 
" dollars and seventy-four cents 11, 975. 74 

William H. S. Elting, administrator of Peter Elting, has proved no valid claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG BROTHERS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Brothers, George Parsons, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

936. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United. States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
1895. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
2834. David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United States. 
3449. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

[preliminary statement. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. 
The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 70& 

assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer,"esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. jgjj 

CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Brothers, whereof George Parsons was master, sailed from the port of 
Savannah, Ga., September 15, 1799, bound for Martinique. On the 11th day of Octo- 
ber following the Brothers arrived at Bermuda, and on the 24th of the same month she 
departed from Bermuda on her intended voyage to Martinique, and on the 6th day 
of November following, while peacefully pursuing said voyage, was seized by a French 
privateer from Guadaloupe, which placed a prize master on board, with orders to 
proceed to said island; but on the same day was retaken by the United States brig 
Pickering and conducted to the island of St. Christopher and upon payment of the 
usual salvage was released, and on the 19th day of December following sailed there- 
from, bound to Martinique, and while peacefully pursuing her said voyage was 
seized on the 23d day of said month by the French privateer Cygne, Captain Lora- 
illes, and a prize crew placed on board, which conducted the Brothers to the island 
of Guadaloupe, and on the 29th day of the said month both vessel and cargo were 
condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by the tri- 
bunal of commerce and prizes, sitting at Basseterre, in the said island, whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: 
Considering that from the said analyzed papers and from the aforesaid report of 
examination it is evident that everything demonstrates that the cargo belongs to 
Messrs. Richard Shelmerding and Andrew Charrurier, merchants of Martinique, who 
have chartered the vessel in question pursuant to a charter party which is appended to 
the said papers and which was entered into at the island of Martinique July 7, 1799, and 
from the statement made by the captain of the said vessel, who says that he believes 
that the said cargo is for the account of merchants of Martinique. 

Considering that the captain has no r61e d'equipage whatever, having admitted in his 
examination that he had none, but only agreements made with his crew, an imperfect 
document, not being invested with the signatures of public officers. 

II. The Brothers was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 150 tons burthen, 
built at Alexandria, in the. State of Virginia, in the year 1785, and owned solely by 
David Greene, a citizen of the United States residing m Boston, in the State of Massa- 
chusetts. 

III. The cargo of the Brothers consisted of rice, tobacco, and shingles and was owned 
by the firm of Dennison & Williams, for whom no claim has been filed. The value of 
the cargo does not appear. 

John Blanchard, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of an adventure on 
board consisting of soap and beef of the value per invoice of $130.70, exclusive of pre- 
mium of insurance paid. 

IV. The loss to David Greene by the seizure and condemnation of the Brothers was 
as follows, viz : 

Value of the vessel $4, 000. 00 

Freight earnings (none allowed). 

Premium of insurance paid 648. 00 

Amounting in all to 4, 648. 00 

Deduct insurance received . 3, 600. 00 

Net loss to David Greene 1, 048. 00 

V. September 23, 1799, David Greene effected, through the office of Peter C. Brooks, 
insurance on the vessel in the sum of $3,600, paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent, 
the policy being underwritten as follows, viz: 

Jeffrey & Russell $500. 00 

John C. Jones 1, 000. 00 

Benjamin Bussey 1, 000. 00 

Stephen Gorham ' 600. 00 

William H. Bordman 500. 00 

Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$3,600 as and for a total loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of said vessel 
by the French. 



;*710 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

September 23, 1799, David Greene effected, through the office of Peter C. Brooks, 
insurance on the freight, but, the neutrality of the cargo not being shown, the insur- 
ance thereon is not allowed. 

January 6, 1800, John Blanchard effected, through the office of Joseph Taylor, in- 
surance on the cargo in the sum of $140, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent, the 
policy being underwritten as follows, viz: 

John C. Jones $140. 00 

Thereafter said Taylor, as agent, duly paid to said assured the sum of $140 as and for 
a total loss by reason of the premises. The value of said cargo so insured was $136.70, 
and said Blanchard was therefore overinsured in the sum of $3.30. The amount 
recoverable on this policy is therefore the said sum — $136.70. 

All of the above-named underwriters were citizens of the United States. 

After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000 
to him paid and the assumption of all his responsibility as an underwriter in the office 
of said Peter C. Brooks, said Benjamin Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his interest 
in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 
to him paid and the assumption of all his responsibility as an underwriter hi the 
office of said Peter C. Brooks, said Stephen Gorham assigned to the said Brooks all 
his interest in and to said business. 

After said payment, to wit, November 15, 1804, for and in consideration of $13,250 
to him paid and the assumption of all his responsibility as an underwriter in the 
office of said Peter C. Brooks, said William H. Bordman assigned to said Brooks all 
his interest in said business. 

The firm of Jeffrey & Russell was composed solely of Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph 
Russell, the last named being the surviving partner of the firm. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Brothers, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

Brooks Adams, adminstrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand one hundred 

dollars $2,100.00 

Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, surviving partner of 
Jeffrey & Russell, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand one hun- 
dred and thirty-six dollars and seventy cents 1, 136. 70 

David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, one thousand and forty- 
eight dollars :. 1,048.00 

Amounting in all to four thousand seven hundred and eighty-four 

dollars and seventy cents 4, 784. 70 

The owners of the cargo are not in court. 

By the Coukt. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1907. 
[seal.1 John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 711 



SCHOONER ISABELLA. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Isabella. Lewis Lombard, master.] 

No. of . 

case. Claimant. 

3101. Charles L. De Normandie, administrator of estate of Benjamin Smith, deceased, 

v. the United States. 
499. Brooks Adams, administrator of the estate of Peter C. Brooks, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
]501. James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, v. The 

United States. 
3030. Nathan Matthews, administrator of the estate of Daniel Sargent, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3554. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
3554. George G. King, administrator of the estate of James Scott, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
3554. William G. Perry, administrator of the estate of Nicholas Gilman, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
3554. Jonathan Bowditch, administrator of the estate of Benjamin Pickman, de- 
ceased, v. The United States. 
3554. Edward I. Browne, administrator of the estate of Israel Thorndike, deceased, 

v. The United States. 

3554. Augustus P. Loring, administrator of the estate of W. H. Boardman, deceased, 

v. The United States. 

3555. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3555. David G. Haskins, administrator of the estate of David Greene, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3555. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of the estate of Stephen Codman, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3555. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of the estate of Tuthill Hubbart, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of November, 1907. 
The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, Wm. T. S. Curtis, and 
Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- 
General, through his assistants in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stan- 
hope Henry, esqrs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Isabella, Lewis Lombard, master, sailed on the 29th day of April, 
1800, on a commercial voyage from Boston, Mass., bound for the island of St. Thomas. 

While peacefully pursuing said voyage, she was captured on the 30th day of May, 
1800, on the high seas by a squadron of three war ships of the French Republic and a 
schooner of four guns from Cayenne, under command of Captain Bordeson, who acted 
as commodore of said squadron. The master was ordered aboard said French schooner, 
and then ordered before the commodore of said squadron. While he was on board 
the commodore's ship the boats of the whole French squadron boarded the Isabella, 
broke open the hatches, and plundered said vessel of provisions and every article 
they could lay their hands on. After the Isabella had been plundered, the master 
was ordered aboard his vessel, and he and the mate of the Isabella were directed to get 
their things, and were then put aboard the American schooner Sally, Capt. Jesse Smith, 
from Philadelphia. 

The Sally, which had been captured and plundered by said squadron, was directed 
to proceed on her voyage. Nothing was thereafter heard of said schooner Isabella, and 
she became a total loss to her owners. 

II. The Isabella was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 83|| tons bur- 
then; was built at New Castle, Mass., in 1791, and was owned by Benjamin Smith 
one-half, John Smith one-fourth, and Daniel Sargent one-fourth, all of whom were citi- 
zens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Isabella at the time of capture consisted of fish, beef, pork, 
shooks, hoops, lard, and dry goods, and was owned by the said Benjamin Smith, John 
Smith, and Daniel Sargent, and was valued as set forth below. 



712 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Lewis Lombard, the master of the Isabella, also a citizen of the United States, had. 
an adventure on board, which was of the value of at least the sum insured thereon. 
IV. The losses to the owners by reason of the capture of the Isabella were as follows: 

Value of vessel $2, 490. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 383. 33 

Value of cargo 3, 478. 87 

Value of individual invoice owned by Benjamin Smith 424. 16 

Value of master's adventure (as far as covered by insurance) 100. 00 

Premium of insurance paid (on insurance effected before capture) 260. 00 



Amounting in all to. 8, 136. 36 

Deduct insurance received 5, 600. 00 

Total loss 2, 536 . 36 

The loss to Benjamin Smith by reason of said seizure was as follows: 

One-half value of vessel $1, 245. 00 

One-half freight earnings 691. 66 

One-half value of cargo 1, 739. 43 

Value of individual invoice 424. 16 

Premium of insurance paid. 260. 00 

Amounting in all to 4, 360. 25 

Deduct insurance received 2, 600.00 

Net loss "'. 1, 760. 25 

The loss to Daniel Sargent by reason of said seizure was as follows: 

One-fourth value of vessel $622. 50 

One-fourth freight earnings 345. 84 

One-fourth value of cargo 869. 72 

Amounting in all to 1, 838. 06 

Deduct insurance received 1, 500. 00 

Net loss 4 338. 06 

V. On the 18th day of June, 1800, Daniel Sargent insured his interest in the vessel 
and cargo in the Boston Marine Insurance Company in the sum of $1,500, at a premium 
of 20 per cent. 

Thereafter, on the 26th day of September, 1800, said company duly paid the insured 
the sum of $1,500, being in full for total loss on the above policy. 

VI. On the 20th day of May, 1800, Benjamin Smith effected in the office of Joseph 
Taylor insurance on his interest in the vessel and cargo in the sum of $2,600, paying 
therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following- 
named persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set 
opposite his name: 

James Scott ' $600.00 

Nicholas Gilman 600. 00 

Benjamin Picknian 500. 00 

Israel Thorndike 500. 00 

William H. Boardman 400.00 

Thereafter, on October 13, 1800, the said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said 
insured the sum of $2,600, being in full for total loss on the above policy. 

VII. On the 13th day of May, 1800, John Smith insured his interest in the vessel and 
cargo in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $1,400, paying therefor a premium of 
10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, all of 
whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name: 

David Greene $500. 00 

Stephen Codman 400. 00 

Tuthill Hubbart 500. 00 

Thereafter, on October 13, 1800, the said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said 
insured the sum of $1,400, being in full for a total loss on the above policy. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 713 

VIII. On the 29th day of April, 1800, Lewis Lombard, the master of said vessel, 
effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on his adventure on board said vessel, 
in the sum of $100, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being under- 
written by John C. Jones, a citizen of the United States, for the sum of $100. 

Thereafter, on October 30, 1800, Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured 
the sum of $100, being in full for a total loss on the above policy. 

There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the commissions of the 
master, but no recovery can be had therefor. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the Isabella, as set forth in the preceding 
findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, were the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Charles L. De Normandie, administrator of Benjamin Smith, one thousand 

seven hundred and sixty dollars and twenty-five cents $1, 760. 25 

Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, three hundred and 

thirty-eight dollars and six cents 338. 06 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one hundred dollars . . . 100. 00 
James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, one 

thousand five hundred dollars 1, 500. 00 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, six hundred dollars 600. 00 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Oilman, six hundred dollars. . 600. 00 
Jonathan I. Bowditch, administrator of Benjamin Pickman, five hundred 

dollars , 500. 00 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, five hundred dollars . 500. 00 
Augustus P. Loring, administrator of William H. Boardman, four hundred 

dollars 400. 00 

David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, five hundred dollars .. . 500. 00 
Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, four hundred dollars. . 400. 00 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, five hundred dol- 
lars 500.00 

Amounting in all to seven thousand six hundred and ninety-eight 

dollars and thirty-one cents 7, 698. 31 

No person claiming to represent John Smith, part owner of vessel and cargo, has 
appeared herein. 

The estates of Peter C. Brooks and Joseph Taylor have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



714 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



SCHOONER COLLY. 



[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Colly, William Mariner, master.] 



No. of 
case. 

1822. 



2024. 
3476. 



Claimant. / 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United 

States. 
George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United 

States. 
George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 
William P. Perkins, administrator of Thomas Perkins, v. The United States. 
Charles A. Welsh, administrator of William Stackpole, v. The United States. 
Walter Hunnewell, administrator of Arnold Welles, jr., v. The United States. 
Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, v. The United States. 
Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 
David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United States. 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Colly, William Mariner, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
or about March 7, 1798, from Boston, bound to Surinam. Seized in the harbor of Cay- 
enne, where the vessel had put in distress, by the officers of that port, on the 12th day 
of April, 1798. Condemned by the tribunal of public arbitrators of the department 
of the colony of Cayenne same day — April 12, 1798 — (23 Germinal, year 6) on the fol- 
lowing ground: 

"That the r61e d'equipage carried by the said master was not in the required form, 
it not having contained the names of two passengers on board." 

II. The schooner Colly was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 59 tons 
burthen; built in the State of Virginia in the year 1789, and owned solely by Peter 
William Mariner, master of said vessel, who was a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Colly at the time of seizure and condemnation consisted of 
cables, butter, cordage, copper, nails, pork, staves, and cheese, and was owned by the 
master, William Mariner. 

IV. The cargo was overinsured, as shown below, but the actual loss on the cargo was 
$8,154, plus $1,630.80, premium of insurance paid on the actual value of the cargo, 
makes total loss thereon $9,784.80; insurance received, $9,784.80. 

V. March 7, 1798, Mungo Mackay, as agent for William Mariner, effected insurance 
in the office of Joseph Taylor, an insurance broker of Boston, to the amount of $5,000 on 
the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten by 
the following persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

Nathaniel Fellowes $1, 000 

James Scott 500 

Thomas Perkins 500 

William Stackpole 500 



John Welles 

Arnold Welles, jr 500 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 500 

David Greene 1, 000 

Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$5,000, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises; but there being an over- 
insurance on this policy and the one in the Brooks office, the loss on this policy 
amounted only to the sum of $3,763.38, and the pro rata loss to each underwriter is as 
follows: 



Nathaniel Fellowes $752. 68 

James Scott 376. 34 

Thomas Perkins 376. 34 

William Stackpole 376. 34 

John Welles 376. 34 



Arnold Welles, jr $376. 34 

Samuel W. Pomeroy 376. 33 

David Greene 752.67 



3, 763. 38 



ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 



715 



VI. March 7, 1798, Mungo Mackay, as agent for William Mariner, effected insurance 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker of Boston, to the amount of $8,000 
on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten 
by the following persons, each in the amount set opposite their names, respectively, 
viz: 



Daniel Sargent $600 

Caleb Hopkins 1,000 

Matthew Bridge 400 

Benjamin Homer 600 

David Greene 1, 000 



Crowell Hatch $1, 000 

Tuthill Hubbart 1, 000 

Nathaniel Fellowes 1, 000 

William Smith 1, 000 

DanieLT). Rogers 400 

Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$8,000, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises; but there being an over- 
insurance on this policy as well as the one in the Taylor office, the loss on this policy 
amounted only^to the sum of $6,021.42, and the pro rata loss to each underwriter is as 
follows: 



Crowell Hatch $752. 68 

Tuthill Hubbart 752. 68 

Nathaniel Fellowes 752. 68 

William Smith 752. 68 

Daniel D. Rogers 301. 07 

Daniel Sargent 451. 61 



Caleb Hopkins $752. 67 

Matthew Bridge 301. 07 

Benjamin Homer 451. 61 

David Greene 752. 67 



6, 021. 42 



After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 
and the assumption of the responsibility of William Smith as an underwriter in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said 
business. 

After said payment, to wit, April 4, 1808, for and in consideration of $60,000 and the 
assumption of the responsibility of Tuthill Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of 
Peter C. Brooks, said Hubbart assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, October 19, 1804, for and in consideration of $3,400 and 
the assumption of the responsibility of Daniel D. Rogers as an underwriter in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Rogers assigned to the said Brooks all of his interest in 
said business. 

After said payment, to wit, November 23, 1804, for and in consideration of $3,180.37 
and the assumption of the responsibility of Matthew Bridge as an underwriter in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bridge assigned to the said Brooks all of his interest in 
said business. 

After said payment, to wit, July 23, 1805, for and in consideration of $5,000 and the 
assumption of the responsibility of Benjamin Homer as an underwriter in the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, said Homer assigned to the said Brooks all of his interest in said 
business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 23, 1801, for and in consideration of $6,000 
and the assumption of the responsibility of David Greene as an underwriter in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Greene assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said 
business. 

After said payment, to wit, December 8, 1801, the administrator of Caleb Hopkins, 
for and in consideration of $3,000 and the assumption of the responsibility of said- 
Hopkins as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said administrator assigned 
to the said Brooks all the interest of the said Hopkins in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, September 2, 1806, for and in consideration of $3,000 
and the assumption of the responsibility of Daniel Sargent as an underwriter in the 
office of Peter C. Brooks, said Sargent assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said 
business. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizi&e and condemnation of the schooner Colly as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 




716 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, four thousand five hun- 
dred and sixteen dollars and six cents „ $4, 516. 06 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, seven hundred and fifty- 
two dollars and sixty-eight cents 752. 68 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand five 

hundred and five dollars and thirty-six cents 1, 505. 36 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott,, three hundred and seventy- 
six dollars and thirty-four cents .' 376. 34 

William P. Perkins, administrator of Thomas Perkins, three hundred and 

seventy-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 

Charles A. Welsh, administrator of William Stackpole, three hundred and 

seventy-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 

Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Wells, three hundred and sev- 
enty-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 

Walter Hunnewell, administrator of Arnold Wells, jr., three hundred and 

seventy-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 

Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, three hundred and 

seventy-six dollars and thirty-three cents 376. 33 

David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, seven hundred and fifty- 
two dollars and sixty-seven cents 752. 67 

Amounting in all to nine thousand seven hundred and eighty-four 

dollars and eighty cents 9 784. 80 

The owners of vessel, cargo, and freight are not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER JUNO. 

{Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d Ed., 471. Vessel schooner, Juno, William Burgess, master.] 
No. of 
. case. Claimant. 

2360. Cazenove G. Lee, administrator of the estate of James Patton, surviving partner 

of James Patton and James Dykes, deceased, v. The United States. 
■3556. Charles G. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3556. John W. Apthorp, administrator of the estate of William Foster, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3556. William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3556. William S. Carter, administrator of the estate of William Smith, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3556. H. Burr Crandall, administrator of the estate of Thomas Dickason, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3556. Nathan Matthews, administrator of the estate of Daniel Sargent, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3556. Augustus P. Loring, administrator of the estate of William Boardman, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
3556. Lawrence Bond, administrator of the estate of Nathan Bond, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
3556. David Greene Haskins, administrator of the estate of David Greene, deceased, 

v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 717 

No. of 

case. Claimant. 

3556. William G. Perry, administrator of the estate of Nicholas Gilman, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
2102. Montgomery Fletcher, administrator of the estate of John Walter Fletcher, 

deceased, partner of Fletcher & Otway, v. The United States. 
3035. Horace B. Sargent, jr., administrator of the estate of Daniel Sargent, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
3035. William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
5510. William A. Hayes, 2d, administrator of the estate of Eliphalet Ladd, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
4374. Julian T. Burke, administrator of the estate of George Taylor, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
2628. William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. Corcoran, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
2628. James M. Johnston, administrator of the estate of George W. Biggs, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
2628. Bobert S. Chew, administrator of the estate of Bichard Smith, deceased, v.. 

The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 19th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, Theo- 
dore J. Bickett, John St. Clair Brookes, and George S. Boutwell, esqs., and the United 
States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department 
of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Juno, William Burgess, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Alexandria, Va., June 15, 1796, bound for Bort au Prince. While peacefully pursu- 
ing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on the 18th day of July, 1796, by 
the French barge La Bonne, Nouvelle, and carried into the port of Leogane, Hispaniola. 
The following is the protest of James Merrihew. the mate of the schooner Juno: 

"By this public instrument of protest, be it known and manifest that on Saturday, 
the fifth day of November, anno Domini 1796, before me, Samuel Chace, esq., public 
notary, duly appointed for the town and county of Brovidence. in the State of Bhode 
Island and Providence Plantations, personally appeared and came James Merrihew, 
late mate of schooner Juno, of Boston, belonging to Dix and Haskins, merchants there, 
and being engaged in due form of law doth depose and declare that he sailed out from 
Boston as mate aforesaid in said schooner under William Burgess, and went to Alex- 
andria, and took in a cargo there for Bort au Prince, and on the fifteenth day of June 
left the Cape of Virginia, vessel and cargo then in good order. During our passage 
passed Cape Nicholas July the fifteenth, and fell in with a fleet of Americans and 
Engli^n vessels bound to the same Port au Prince under convoy of English armed 
vessels, and on the eighteenth we were boarded by a French barge named Bonnewal, 
Peter Tourois, master. They put on board us four armed men, soldiers and a corporal, 
all French, and we were not any of us allowed to speak with any other American in 
that place. The captain. William Burgess, was carried on shore and examined and 
returned that evening; the 19th carried on shore again, when he was abused for that 
he refused to let them have the cargo at a price they were pleased to offer him. They 
took from us all our protections and every paper they could find and carried them 
away in the captain's trunk. 

"On the twenty-second day the commissary came on board and demanded the 
captain to set a price on the flour, which he did. They were to give him sixteen 
dollars a barrel for the superfine and fifteen dollars for the fine and to pay him in coffee 
at 31 sue in forty-five days, after which the captain attempted to go on shore, but was 
stopped by the guard and ordered again on board; and on the twenty-third the captain 
sent me on shore with a line for the privilege to come on shore, but the answer was, No; 
and on the twenty -fourth the commissary sent on board for four barrels of bread, but 
the captain would not let it go, so upon this refusal they came on the twenty-fifth on 
board and took it away by force, and on the twenty-sixth they came on board again 
and demanded the flour, which we also began to deliver; and on the thirtieth the 



718 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

captain got liberty to go on shore, and on July second finished landing our flour; and 
on the third the captain got a receipt for it, but they took it from him in two hours 
after and never returned it again; and on the 22d August the commissary sent a boat 
on board and began to take our bread and meal without asking any questions, and on 
the eighth September they finished; and on the fifteenth September Captain Burgess 
died ; and on the twenty-first they told me that they "should give me a receipt for the 
cargo if I would render an account of the cargo to the administration, which I did, 
after which they refused to give me any; and whether that I signed was a receipt or 
not it was not in my power to say, but it was translated as an accompt; agreeable to 
my accompt; I applied to the administration for meat three times, and he refused to 
supply me ; and on the twenty-eighth I abandoned the vessel , having nothing on board 
to subsist on except bread and water; then took passage with Captain Samuel Davis 
in sloop Union, bound to Providence, and on the evening of the fourth of November 
arrived and report accordingly." 

It further appears by letter from William Burgess, master of the schooner Juno, 
addressed to Patton and Dykes, dated Leogane, Hispaniola, July 26, 1796, that on the 
18th of July, 1796, he got within 20 miles of Port au Prince in company with three 
sails of American vessels bound for that place ; that he was captured by a French pri- 
vateer and carried into Leogane ; that six armed men were put on board to guard 
him, and that he was not allowed to advise with any Americans in that port, there 
being twenty American vessels present, nor even to speak to them from his vessel; 
that he was carried by a guard of soldiers to the commandant every day for examina- 
tion; that he was kept as closely confined as a prisoner of war and was not allowed to 
enter a protest nor even to go on shore without the commandant sending for him, and 
that then he was driven before a guard of negroes like a dog. 

On the 9th day of January, 1797, the Juno was condemned by the tribunal of com- 
merce sitting at Cape Francois, on the following grounds: 

That the Juno was bound for Port au Prince, and that Port au Prince is one of the 
places in the colony of San Domingo that have rebelled against the laws of the French 
Republic and are under the protection of the British Government, and have been 
declared in a state of permanent seige by the decree of the commission of the 6th of 
this month. 

II. The Juno was a duly registered vessel of the United States of lllff tons burthen; 
was built in the United States and was owned by Dix & Haskins, citizens of the United 
States, and residents of Boston, Mass. 

III. The cargo of the Juno consisted of flour, meal, and bread, and was owned by 
Patton & Dykes, citizens of the United States and residents of ■ Alexandria, Va., to 
the amount of $8,000 and Dix & Haskins to the amount of $1,800. 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Juno were as 
follows: 

Value of vessel (to amount of insurance paid) $3, 000. 00 

Freight earnings (to amount of insurance paid) 2, 000. 00 

Value of cargo owned by Dix & Haskins 1, 800. 00 

Value of cargo owned by Patton & Dykes 8, 000. 00 

Premium of insurance paid by Patton & Dykes 66. 66 

Amounting in all to 14, 866. 66 

V. On the 10th day of June, 1796, Dix & Haskins effected insurance in the office 
of Joseph Taylor, of Boston, Mass., in the sum of $6,800, of which $3,000 thereof was 
on the vessel, $2,000 on the freight, and $1,800 on the cargo, paying therefor a pre- 
mium of 7 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of 
whom were citizens of the United States, viz: 

William Foster $1, 000. 00 

John Brazer 1, 000. 00 

William Smith 800. 00 

Thomas Dickason, jr 500. 00 

Daniel Sargent 500. 00 

William Boardman 1, 000. 00 • 

Nathan Bond 500. 00 

Nicholas Gilman 500. 00 

David Greene 500. 00 

Eliphalet Ladd 500. 00 

6, 800. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 719 

On the 14th day of March, 1797, said Taylor, as agent for the underwriters, paid to 
Dix & Haskins the said sum of $6,800 as and for a total loss. 

VI. The firm of Fletcher & Otway for a premium, the amount of which is unknown, 
insured the said Patton & Dykes £100 or $333.33 on their portion of the cargo on board 
the Juno at the time of the capture, against said loss. Thereafter the said firm duly 
paid the said Patton & Dykes the sum of $333.33 as and for a total loss. 

The said firm of Fletcher & Otway, formerly of Alexandria and Norfolk, in the State 
of Virginia, was composed of John Walter Fletcher and Robert Otway, both of whom 
were citizens of the United States, and was dissolved during the lifetime of the mem- 
bers thereof. 

VII. George Taylor, a citizen of the United States and resident of Alexandria, Va., 
for a premium of 10 per cent underwrote to the amount of £200 or $666.67 on a policy 
of insurance effected on account of said Patton & Dykes, in the office of James Bruce 
Nichols, insurance broker in said Alexandria, on the 14th June, 1796, on their portion 
of the cargo on board the Juno at the time of capture, against the said loss. 

Thereafter the said Taylor duly paid the said Patton & Dykes the sum of $666.67, 
as and for a total loss. 

VIII. About July, 1831, said George Taylor, being unable to pay his debts in full, 
executed an assignment to the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the 
United States, a corporation chartered by act of Congress approved the 10th day of 
April, 1816, his claims against the Government of the United States for French spolia- 
tions committed prior to the treaty of the 30th September, 1800, a schedule of which 
was attached and included claims as underwriter. Said assignment was to the use of 
the several parties named, in payment and discharge of their respective demands 
against him, and in proportion thereto, as follows: 

Bank of the United States $5, 870. 05 

Bank of Alexandria 900. 00 

Bank of Potomac, say 750. 00 

Indorses, N(athaniel) W(attles) 4, 500, 00 

John Corse '. 350. 00 

Total 12, 370. 05 

Subsequently, to wit, March 2, 1836, said Bank of the United States chartered by 
act of Congress, as aforesaid, assigned and transferred among other property, to the 
bank of the same name chartered by an act of the assembly of the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania, as aforesaid, assigned and transferred, among other property, to James 
Dundas, Mordecai Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert 
Howell the said claim of said Bank of the United States chartered by act of Congress, 
against the said George Taylor, and said spoliation claims of said George Taylor, then 
held by said Bank of the United States chartered by act of Congress, as collateral 
security for the said Taylor's debt, as aforesaid. 

Subsequently, to wit, August 29, 1846, said James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis 
(Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell, by deed, assigned 
and transferred to said William W. Corcoran said claim against George Taylor for 
$5,870.05, together with said collateral security. 

Although said claim against said George Taylor, and said claim of said George Taylor 
against the United States, before referred to, were assigned and transferred to said 
William W. Corcoran in severalty, the consideration paid to the said James Dundas, 
Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell 
for the assignments and transfers aforesaid was contributed equally by said William 
W. Corcoran, George W. Riggs, and Richard Smith under an agreement existing be- 
tween them, that the money or property transferred, by virtue of said assignments, 
should be divided equally between the said three persons, and all property thus far 
recovered under said assignments has been so divided. 

IX. The losses to Patton & Dykes, by reason of said seizure and condemnation, were 
as follows: 

Value of the cargo owned by them $8, 000. 00 

Premium of insurance paid by them 66. 66 

Amounting in all to 8, 066. 66 

Deduct insurance received 1, 000. 00 

Net loss 7, 066. 66 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 



720 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Juno, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their respective capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have 
never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty, in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States ; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Cazenove G. Lee, administrator of James Patton, surviving partner of the 
firm of Patton & Dykes, seven thousand and sixty-six dollars and sixty- 
six cents 1 $7, 066. 66 

John W. Apthorp, administrator of William Foster, one thousand dollars. . 1, 000. 00 

William I. Monroe, administrator of John Brazer, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

William S. Carter, administrator of William Smith, eight hundred dollars. . 800. 00 
H. Burr Grandall, administrator of Thomas Dickason, jr., five hundred dol- 
lars 500. 00 

Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, five hundred dollars.. 500. 00 
Augustus P. Loring, administrator of William Boardman, one thousand dol- 
lars ....._ 1, 000. 00 

Lawrence Bond, administrator of Nathan Bond, five hundred dollars 500.00 

David Greene Haskins, administrator of David Greene, five hundred dollars 500. 00 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Oilman, five hundred dollars. 500. 00 
William A. Hayes, 2d, administrator of Eliphalet Ladd, five hundred dol- 
lars • 500. 00 

Montgomery Fletcher, administrator of John Walter Fletcher, for and on 
behalf of the firm of Fletcher & Otway, three hundred and thirty- three 

dollars and thirty -three cents 333. 33 

William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. 'Corcoran, assignee of 

George Taylor, one hundred and seventy-three dollars and forty-six cents 173. 46 
James M. Johnston, administrator of George W. Riggs, assignee of George 

Taylor, one hundred and seventy -three dollars and forty-six cents 173. 46 

Robert S. Chew, administrator of Richard Smith, assignee of George Taylor, 

one hundred and seventy-three dollars and forty-six cents 173. 46 

— * 

Amounting in all to fourteen thousand seven hundred and twenty 

dollars and thirty-seven cents 14, 720. 37 

The assignment of George Taylor, hereinbefore set forth in the conclusions of fact, 
to the extent of the debts of Nathaniel Wattles and John Corse, for which he had been 
personally liable as surety, and which assignment to that extent was made in lieu of 
his personal liability as such surety, can not, at this day, be carried out and must be 
held to have failed. It would be inequitable, considering the circumstances of the 
case, to make any deduction on that account, and none is made. 

No allowance is made herein to Julian T. Burke, administrator of George Taylor, as 
the assignment of the latter, beyond the part thereof regarding the debts of Nathaniel 
Wattles and John Corse, is held operative, applying to his own indebtedness, which 
has not yet been fully extinguished . 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] . John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 721 

SLOOP FOX. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel sloop Fox, Nathaniel Dennis, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

40. Edmund D. Codnian, administrator of William Gray, v. The United States. 
1039. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
1651. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Charles W. Clagett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel.on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The sloop Fox, whereof Nathaniel Dennis was master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage June 20, 1798, from Ipswich, Mass., bound to the port of Martinico, with a cargo 
consisting of codfish, wood, oil, beef, etc. On July 4, 1798, while peacefully pursuing 
said voyage, she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Le Pelletier, Capt. 
Pierre Mounier, and conducted into the port of Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe. 
Thereafter, on the 28th day of July, 1798 (Thermidor 4, year 6), said vessel and cargo 
were condemned by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre on the following 
ground : 

"That on board the American sloop Fox were found neither invoice, bill of lading, 
nor role d ' equipage . " 

II. The sloop Fox was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 73 tons burthen, 
built at Ipswich, Mass., in the year 1785, registered at Salem in the year 1794, and 
owned solely by John Heard and Jonathan Ingersoll, citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the sloop Fox at the time of capture consisted of codfish, wood, oil, 
beef, etc., but the value and ownership of the same do not appear. 

IV. July 19, 1798, John Heard and Jonathan Ingersoll obtained a policy of insurance 
in the office of Peter C. Brooks to the amount of $2,000 on the said sloop Fox, paying 
therefor a premium of 33J per cent. The underwriters, all of whom were citizens of 
the United States, who underwrote the said insurance, each in the amount set opposite 
his name, were as follows: 



William Gray, jr $600 Crowell Hatch 

William Smith 400 , Caleb Hopkins 200 

Benjamin Bussey 400 

January 24, 1799, said insurers duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,000, being in 
full for a total loss on said policy, and a loss to each of said underwriters of the amount 
underwritten by them respectively, by reason 'of the capture and condemnation as 
aforesaid. 

There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the cargo of said vessel, 
but it not appearing who were the owners of said cargo or of the value thereof, no 
recovery can be had therefor, nor is the neutrality of said cargo shown. 

V. After said payment, to wit, December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of 
Caleb Hopkins, in consideration of $3,000, transferred to Peter C. Brooks all the interest 
of said Hopkins, with its advantages and disadvantages, as an underwriter in said 
Brooks's office. 

After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.50, 
and the assumption of all responsibility of William Smith as an insurer in the office of 
Peter C. Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. 

After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000, 
and the assumption of all responsibility of Benjamin Bussey as an insurer in the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his interest in and to said 
business. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Fox, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 46 



722 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never beep assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished, to France by the Government of the United 
States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national 
claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to 
the following sums from the United States: 
Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., six hundred 

dollars $600. 00 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, four hundred dollars 400. 00 

Amounting in all to two thousand dollars 2, 000. 00 

No persons claiming to represent the owners of the vessel and cargo have appeared 
herein. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 20th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG MARY, HOLMES, MASTER. . 

[Court of Claims. French, spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Mary, Robert Holmes, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1014. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of the estate of William Gray, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
2417. William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
3574. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
4097. William Seton, administrator of the estate of William Seton, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
William Seton, administrator of the estate of William Magee Seton, deceased, 

v. The United States. 
Henry H. Porter, administrator of the estate of David Maitland, deceased,, v. 

The United States. 
4179. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of the estate of John McLean, v. The United 

States. 

preliminary statement. 

These cases were tried before the Court of claims on the 20th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, Theo- 
dore J. Pickett, and J. Bayard Henry, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by 
the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, esq. , with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

conclusions of fact. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Mary, Robert Holmes, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or 
about the 1st of June, 1797, from Boston, Mass., bound for Naples, Italy. While 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 723 

peacefully pursuing said voyage the said vessel was captured on the high seas on the 
23d day of June, 1797, by the French privateer L' Intrepid, Captain Candeau, and 
carried into Nantes, France, where said vessel and her cargo were condemned by the 
tribunal of commerce of the canton of Nantes on the 28th day of September, 1797, 
whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The decree sets forth the grounds 
of condemnation as follows: 

"Whereas: First. All the papers of which Captain Holmes is the bearer have not 
been attested; 

"2. That all the papers show that the vessel as well as the cargo belonged to citi 
zens of the United States; 

"3. That this cargo was destined for Naples, a friend of the Republic; 

"4. That the captain has only one bill of lading, comprising all his cargo, but that 
it has no signature; 

"5. That he had also a crew list containing the names, but without legal signature, 
or names, places of birth, or residence of the men; 

''6. That this list was not in conformity with the regulations for the navigation of 
neutrals required by law : 

"7. That article 4 of the decree of the executive directory on the 12th Ventose 
declares lawful prize all American ships not furnished with a crew list and passport 
as prescribed and annexed to the treaty of February 6, 1778, and required by the 
regulations relating to the navigation of neutral vessels; 

" 8. That article 7 of chapter 9 of book 3 of the ordinance of 1681 decrees that all ves- 
sels loaded with property belonging to our enemies and all merchandise of our subjects 
and allies which shall be found upon an hostile vessel shall be a lawful prize: There- 
fore, 

"In accordance with article 15 of the law of the Thud Brumaire in the year 4, and 
with the decree of the executive directory on the 12th Ventose in the year 4, we do 
adjudge and declare the capture of the Mary, her rigging and appurtenances, by the 
privateer L' Intrepid, to be valid." 

This decree of condemnation sets out that the master of the Mary carried the follow- 
ing papers: A crew list which did not designate the place of birth of the men, a register, 
a sailing permit, or clearance, from the port of Boston, a bill of health from the port of 
Boston, a passport, an order from the owner of the vessel to the master to proceed to 
Naples, a bill of lading of merchandise of the cargo, and a manifest of the cargo. The 
decree further sets out that the master claimed that the vessel and cargo were owned by- 
American citizens and that the cargo consisted of sugar, pepper, coffee, and nankeens. 

The said decree of condemnation was confirmed on appeal on the 26th day of Octo- 
ber, 1797. 

II. The Mary was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 99 tons burthen, 
was built at Kittery, Mass., in 1791, and was owned by John B. Marshall, a citizen of 
the United States and a resident of Boston. The value of the vessel at the time of cap- 
ture was in excess of $4,000. for which amount insurance was effected thereon, as set 
forth below. 

III. The cargo of the Mary at the time of capture consisted of coffee, sugar, peppers, 
and nankeens, owned by several citizens of the United States. No persons have 
established a claim for the cargo. 

The value of the adventure of John Hart at the time was at least $115, for which 
insurance was effected thereon as set forth below. 

IV. On the 26th day of May. 1797. John B. Marshall, owner of the vessel, effected 
insurance on the same in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $4,000, said policy 
being underwritten by William Gray, a citizen of the United States, for $4,000. 

At various times after the condemnation of said vessel and before the 2d of May, 
1798, said Joseph Taylor, as agent for William Gray, paid to the said insured different 
sums aggregating in all the sum of $3,960, as and for a total loss, less a deduction of 
1 per cent. 

V. On the 20th day of July, 1797, John Hart, a citizen of the United States, insured 
his adventure on board said vessel in the office of Joseph Taylor at a premium of 25 
per cent in the sum of $115. Said policy was underwritten by John Brazer, a citizen 
of the United States, in the said sum of $115. On the 28th day of December, 1798, 
Joseph Taylor, as agent for said underwriter, paid to John Hart the said sum of $115, 
as and for a total loss. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Mary as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 



724 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September. 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Edmund D. Cod man, administrator of the estate of William Gray, deceased, 
three thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars $3, 960. 00 

William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, 
one hundred and fifteen dollars 115. 00 

Amounting in all to four thousand and seventy-five dollars 4, 075. 00 

The owners of the vessel and cargo are not in court. 

Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim 
other than in favor of those who underwrote the insurance effected through the office 
of said Taylor, as hereinbefore set forth. 

The administrators of the estates of John McLean, William Seton. William Magee 
Seton, and David Maitland have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

BRIG GEORGE, GREENLEAF, MASTER. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20., 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig George, Jacob Greenleaf, master.] 
No. of 
ease. Claimants. 

247. William Ropes Track, administrator of Thomas Amorv, v. The United States. 
251. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
3154. Helen N. Pike, administratrix of John Pettingel, v. The United States. 
3875. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 
4313. Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, v. The United States. 

Joseph W. Thompson', administrator of David Coffin, v. The United States. 

Joseph L. Wheelwright, administrator of Moses Savory, v. The United States. 

James S. Gerrish, administrator of Edward Toppan, v. The United States. 

George Otis, administrator of Joseph Marquand, v. The United States. 

Amos Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, v. The United States. 

Amos Noyes, administrator of William Cook, v. The United States. 

Eben F. Stone, administrator of Nathan Hoyt, v. The United States. . 

Henry B. Reed, administrator of Andrew Frothingham, v. The United States. 

Luther R. Moore, administrator of William Boardman, v. The United States. 

Charles C. Donnelly, administrator of Joseph Toppan, v. The United States. 

Fritz H. Jordan, administrator of Leonard Smith, v. The United States. 

Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, jr., v. The United States. 

Jeremiah Nelson, administrator of Jeremiah Nelson, v. The United States. 

Henry P. Toppan, administrator of Joshua Toppan, v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 725 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 11th day of November, 
1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, 
Charles W. Clagett, and John W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United States, defend- 
ants, by tbe Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, 
John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

=7§gpiNDINGS OP FACT |§g 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig George, whereof Jacob Greenleaf was then master, sailed on a commer- 
cial voyage in the month of April, 1798, from Newburyport bound to St. Thomas. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on tbe 7th 
Floreal, year 7, (April 27, 1799,) by the French privateer L' African, Capt. Mathin 
Covelein, and both vessel and cargo condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the 
benefit of the captors May 9, 1799, by decree of the tribunal of commerce and prizes 
sitting at Basseterre, Guadeloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners 
thereof. 

The ground of condemnation as stated in the decree was "that the r61e d'equipage, 
of which Jacob Greenleaf is the bearer, is an informal paper, in this that it is only 
signed by a notary and consequently it does not conform to the treaty of February 6, 
1778. " 

II. The George was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 91f§ tons burthen, 
built in Massachusetts in the year 1797, and owned solely by John Pettingel, a citizen 
of the United States, residing in Newburyport, Mass. 

III. The cargo consisted of lumber, fish, beef, etc., none of which was contraband, 
and was of the value per invoices of 18,152.65 and was owned by said John Pettingel 
and Jacob Greenleaf, a citizen of the United States, in the proportion of one-half each. 

IV. The losses of said John Pettingel by reason of the seizure and condemnation of 
the George were as follows, viz: 

Value of vessel $3, 660. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 516. 66 

One-half value of cargo 3, 649. 88 

One-half of premium of insurance paid on value of cargo 376. 49 



Amounting in all to. . 9, 203. 03 

Deduct one-half of insurance received 4, 050. 00 

Net loss 5, 153. 03 

V. March 27, 1799, John Pettingel, for himself and Jacob Greenleaf, obtained a 
policy of insurance in the office of John Pearson, of Newburyport, Mass., on cargo on 
board this vessel in the sum of $4,100, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent. 

October 19, 1799, and September 27, 1800, the said insured received from John 
Pearson, agent to the underwriters, the sum of $4,100 as and for a total loss by reason 
of the seizure and condemnation by the French. 

The underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case by their legal rep- 
resentatives and the loss sustained by each are as follows, viz 

David Coffin $100.00 William Boardman $100.00 

Moses Savory 200.00 Joseph Toppan 100.00 

Edward Toppan 300.00 Leonard Smith 500.00 

Joseph Marquand 100. 00 James Prince 500. 00 

ZebedeeCook 200.00 John Pearson, jr 300.00 

William Cook 100.00 Jere Nelson 200.00 

Nathan Hoyt 100.00 Joshua Toppan 100.00 

Andrew Frothingham 100.00 

April 22, 1799, John Pettingel, for himself and Jacob Greenleaf, obtained a policy 
of insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on the cargo on board this vessel in the 
sum of $4,000, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent, said policy being underwritten 
as here stated : 

John C. Jones $1, 000. 00 j Thomas Amory $1, 000. 00 

David Greene 1,000.00 I John McLean 1, 000. 00 



726 ALLOWANCE OF CERTATST CLAIMS. 

October 8, 1799, said insured received from Peter C. Brooks, agent to the under- 
writers above named, the sum of $4,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

The cargo's value having been the sum of $7,299.76 and there having been insurance 
to the amount of $8,100 effected thereon, there was an overinsurance on the above 
policy in the sum of $800.24. The premium is therefore calculated on the value of 
the cargo. 

The said John Pearson, Peter C. Brooks, and all of the underwriters named in the 
above two policies were citizens of the United States. 

December 23, 1801, said David Greene, in consideration of $6,000 to him paid by 
Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and 
disadvantages arising from the underwriting of the said Greene in the office of said 
Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance 
done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

February 8, 1802, Isaiah Knapp, executor, etc., of John McLean, for and in con- 
sideration of $3,000 to him paid, transferred to Peter C. Brooks all of the interest as 
an assurer of him, the said John McLean, in the office of him, the said Peter C. Brooks, 
together -with any interests of said McLean in any property which was or might be 
received as an assurer to any adjudicated or condemned property. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig George, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. , 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as' conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France aganist the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States :3 

Helen N. Pike, administratrix of John Pettingel, five thousand one hun- 
dred and fifty-three dollars and three cents $5, 153. 03 

Joseph W. Thompson, administrator of David Coffin, one hundred dollars. . 100. 00 

Joseph L. Wheelwright, administrator of Moses Savory, two hundred dollars. 200. 00 

James S. Gerrish, administrator of Edward Toppan, three hundred dollars. . 300. 00 

George Otis, administrator of Joseph Marquand, one hundred dollars 100. 00 

Amos Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, two hundred dollars 200. 00 

Amos Noyes, administrator of William Cook, one hundred dollars 100. 00 

Eben F. Stone, administrator of Nathan Hoyt, one hundred dollars 100. 00 

Henry B. Reed, administrator of Andrew Frothingham, one hundred dollars 100. 00 

Luther R. Moore, administrator of William Boardman. one hundred dollars. 100. 00 

Charles C. Donnelly, administrator of Joseph Toppan, one hundred dollars. 100. 00 

Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Fritz H. Jordan, administrator of Leonard Smith, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, jr., three hundred dol- 
lars 300. 00 

Jeremiah Nelson, administrator of Jeremiah Nelson, two hundred dollars. . 200. 00 

Henry P. Toppan, administrator of Joshua Toppan, one hundred dollars 100. 00 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand dollars 2, 000. 00 

William Ropes Track, administrator of Thomas Amory, one thousand dol- 
lars 1, 000. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand dollars. . . 1, 000. 00 

Amounting in all to twelve thousand one hundred and fifty-three 
dollars and three cents 12, 153. 03 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 727 

No person claiming to represent Jacob Greenleaf, master and part owner of the cargo, 
has appeared herein. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Coutt of Claims. 

BRIG PEGGY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Peggy, John Hourston, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1290. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America, v. 

The United States. 
1394. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, v. The United States. 
4159. Charles F. Mayer, administrator of Henry Konig, v. The United States. 
4997. Charles F. Mayer, administrator of Henry Konig, v. The United States. 

Charles F. Mayer, surviving executor of Frederick Konig, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 
1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assist- 
ant Attorney-Genera! J. A. Van Orsdel. ' 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, with the briefs of the counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Peggy, whereof John Hourston was then master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage April 2, 1798, from Baltimore bound to Curacoa. While peacefully pursuing 
said voyage she was seized on the high seas April 27, 1798, by the French privateer 
Bonapart, and carried to St. Eustatia. 

May 21, 1798, the Peggy and cargo were condemned as good prize and ordered sold 
for the benefit of the captors by the decree of the tribunal of commerce sitting at 
Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe, and thereby became a total loss to the owners 
thereof. 

John Hourston, master, and August Witte, supercargo of the Peggy, made their way 
to Basseterre to lay claim before the tribunal of commerce there sitting, but were 
refused a hearing and not permitted to produce their means of defense. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: 

First. That the captain of the said brig in his articles of agreement with his crew has 
mentioned his destination to be Curacoa and three ports in Hispaniola, while none of 
his papers mentioned any other place but Curacoa. 

Second. That the act of naturalization of the two supercargoes pro-ved to be of 1797, 
which leaves room to believe that they were born in an enemy's country, and that 
there is no act amongst the papers pointing out the place of nativity. 

Third. That agreeable to the certificate of the commissioners of the marine the 
course which he steered by his log book carried him to St. Kitts. 

II . The Peggy was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 139 |f tons burthen, 
built in the State of Maryland in the year 1793, and owned solely by Henry Konig 
and Frederick Konig, citizens of the United States, residing in Baltimore, composing 
the firm of Frederick & Henry Konig. 

III. The cargo of the Peggy consisted of dry goods, claret, glassware, bagging, and 
barley of the value at the place of shipment of $22,439.69, the same being the sole 
property of the said firm of Frederick & Henry Konig. 

A few days prior to the sailing of the Peggy her cargo was robbed of goods to the 
value of $1,165.27, making the cargo at the time of seizure of the value of $21,274.42 



728 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

IV. The losses to the^owners, Frederick & Henry Konig, by reason^of the seizure 
and condemnation aforesaid were as follows: 

Value of vessel $5, 600. 00 

Freight earnings 2, 333. 33 

Value of cargo ". . . '. . 21, 274. 42 

Premiums of insurance paid 7, 080. 20 

Amounting in all to ... . 36, 287. 95 

Less insurance received 28, 692. 21 

Net loss 7. 595. 74 

V. March 7, 1798, said Frederick and Henry Konig effected insurance on said 
cargo for said voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania 
in the sum of $18,000, paying therefor a premium of 23 per cent. 

July 20, 1798, said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $17,640 as and 
for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abate- 
ment customary with said company. 

It would appear, however, that the sum of $1,106.98, being the sum of $1,129.57 
less the abatement of 2 per cent, was paid on account of the robbery prior to the sailing 
of the vessel, leaving the sum of $16,534.02, as loss paid by reason of the actions of 
the French. The premium paid on that part of the said policy which covered the 
loss arising by the said actions of the French amounted to the sum of $3,880.20. 

The said assured were likewise paid by the said company an additional sum of 
$219.02 as the proportion due from said policy of the expense incurred in attempted 
defense, etc., of said cargo before the prize tribunal at Guadaloupe. 

March 7, 1798, said Frederick & Henry Konig effected insurance on the freight 
of said vessel for said voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsyl- 
vania, in the sum of $6,000, paying therefor a premium of 23 per cent. 

July 20, 1798, the said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,740, as 
and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the 
abatement customary with said company. 

The said assured were likewise paid by the said company an additional sum of 
$36.50 as the proportion due from said company on said policy of the expense incurred 
in attempted defense, etc., of said vessel before the prize tribunal at Guadaloupe. 

March 7, 1798, said Frederick and Henry Konig effected insurance on said vessel for 
the said voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania in the 
sum of $4,000, paying therefor a premium of 23 per cent. 

July 20, 1798, said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,920, as and 
for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abate- 
ment customary with said company. 

The said assured were likewise paid by the said company an additional sum of 
$48.67, as the proportion due from said company on said policy of the expense incurred 
in attempted defense, etc., of said vessel before the prize tribunal at Guadeloupe. 

March 26, 1798, said Frederick & Henry Konig effected insurance on said cargo for 
the said voyage with the Insurance Company of North America in the sum of $5,300, 
paying therefor a premium of 30 per cent. 

August 20, 1798, said company duly paid said assured the sum of $5,194, as and for 
a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abatement 
customary with said company. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Peggy, as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole in or part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAAV. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefore upon the 



ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 7'29 

French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to^the following 
sums from the United States: 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, twenty-three 

thousand four hundred and ninety-eight dollars and twenty-one cents. $23, 498. 21 
The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 

five thousand one hundred and ninety-four dollars 5, 194. 00 

Charles F. Mayer, administrator of Henry Konig, thrc*e thousand sevm 

hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-seven cents 3, 797. 87 

Charles F. Mayer, surviving executor of Frederick Konig, three thousand 

seven hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-seven cents 3, 797. 87 

Amounting in all to thirty-six thousand two hundred and eighty- 
seven dollars and ninety-five cents 36, 287. 95 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER WILLIAM LOVEL. 

[Court of .Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner William Lovel, John K. Hill, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1763. Gustavus W. Ridgely, administrator of George P. Keeports, v. The United 
States. 
Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John McFaden, v. The United States. 
William Clayton Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, v. The United 

States. 
David Stewart, administrator of George Sears, v. The United States. 
2179. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Maryland Insurance 

Company, v. The United States. 
3144. William D. Lee, Thomas D. Lee, Henry A. Lee, Joseph A. Lee, Virginia 
Waters, administrators of William Duncan, v. The United States. 
Luke Tiernan Brian, administrator of Luke Tiernan, v. The United States. 
2555. Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, surviving partner of the 
firm of Church & Delafield, v. The United States. 

^PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqs., and The United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assist- 
ant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner William Lovel, whereof John K. Hill was then master, sailed on 
a commercial voyage in the month of October, 1797, from Fredericksburg, Va., bound 
to Antigua. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas 
on or about the 21st day of November, 1797, by the French privateer Victorieuse, the 
captain of which removed the said John K. Hill from on board the William Lovel, and 
carried him on board the privateer. A prize crew was then placed in charge of the 
William Lovel with orders to conduct her to Guadeloupe. The privateer then bore 



730 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

away to St. Bartholomew, where the said John K. Hill was landed, and from whence 
he tried his best to get to Guadeloupe to learn the fate of his vessel, but could not 
reach there until the 6th day of December following, and where he learned that his 
vessel had been condemned by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre in the 
said island, by decree dated on the 3d day of said month, whereby both vessel and 
cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. 
The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: 
Considering that the supercargo was born a Scotchman, and doth not prove his 
American naturalization conformably to the 12th article of the law of the 21st Octo- 
ber, 1744, comprised in these terms: "All foreign ships shall be good prize upon which 
there shall be a supercargo, merchant, clerk, or marine officer of an enemy's country, 
Ac.;" 

Considering the irregularity of her papers, the want of invoices, of the r61e d'6quipage, 
which appears to have been thrown into the sea after the proces verbal of the capture, 
and of the false route which he appeared to keep after the said proems verbal: 

II. The William Lovel was a duly registered vessel of the United States, as appeared 
by her register on board at the time of said seizure, but it does not appear who were 
her owners or owner at the said date, nor are her age and tonnage given; 

III. The cargo, as far as established by the evidence, consisted of 79 barrels of flour 
and 2,954| bushels of corn, of the value at the place of shipment of $2,743.11, the 
same being the property of William Duncan, a citizen of the United States. 

IV. The losses to said William Duncan by reason of said seizure and condemnation 
were as follows, viz: 

Value of cargo 12,743.11 

Premium of insurance paid : 525. 00 

Advance freight paid 700.00 



3, 968. 11 
Deduct insurance received 3, 339.40 



Net loss 628. 71 

V. October 25, 1797, said William Duncan effected insurance on said cargo for the 
said voyage with the Maryland Insurance Company in the sum of $3,500, paying there- 
for a premium of 15 per cent. 

April 25, 1798, the said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,339.40, as 
and for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. 

November 30, 1797, said William Duncan, as agent, effected insurance on said 
vessel and freight in the office of George P. Keeports, insurance broker of Baltimore, 
but it is not shown who the owners of said vessel were or that the persons for whom said 
insurance was made had any interest in said vessel and freight, and hence no allow- 
ance is made therefor. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner William Lovel, 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831 . 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 731 

of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the fol- 
lowing sums from the United States: 

William D. Lee, Thomas D. Lee, Henry A. Lee, Joseph A. Lee, and Vir- 
ginia Waters, administrators of William Duncan, six hundred and twenty- 
eight dollars and seventy-one cents 1628. 71 

David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Maryland Insurance 
Company, three thousand three hundred and thirty-nine dollars and forty 
cents. ..'.. , . 3, 339. 40 

Amounting in all to three thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight dol- 
lars and eleven cents 3, 968. 11 

George P. Keeports, George Sears, Richard Lawson, John McFadon, Richard Dela- 
field, surviving partner of Church & Delafield. and Luke Tiernan, surviving assignee, 
have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG ABIGAIL. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 2Q, 1885: 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S. 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Abigail, Jeremiah Tibbets, jr., master.] 
No. oi 
case. Claimant. 

2708. William H. Sise, administrator of Ebenezer Tibbetts, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. 

The claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqrs., and the L T nited States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his 
assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Abigail, whereof Jeremiah Tibbetts, jr., was then master, sailed on a 
commercial voyage January 19, 1797, from Portsmouth bound to the island of St. 
Croix. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas Feb- 
ruary 9, 1797, by the French privateer Furet, Capt. Jean Davignon, who took the 
master of the Abigail and three of his crew on board and detained them on the privateer 
and put the Abigail under the charge of a prize master and crew. Thereafter the 
Abigail, together with the privateer, arrived at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, where the 
said Jeremiah Tibbetts, jr., was detained for three days on the said privateer, and 
then taken on shore and examined by the authorities, after which he was not per- 
mitted to go on board the Abigail and no provision was made for his support. 

On February 17, 1797, trial was had before the tribunal of commerce in the said 
island and a decree was passed that the said vessel should be detained three months 
in order to allow Edward Sise, supercargo of the Abigail, to obtain from America a 
certificate from the French consul that he, the said supercargo, has been naturalized- 
according to law, and in the meantime directed that the cargo should be sold to avoid 
deterioration. 

Thereafter the said Edward Sise did produce satisfactory evidence that he had 
been legally naturalized a citizen of the United States since 1784, and on the 24th 
Floreal. 5th year (May 13, 1797), the said tribunal of commerce released the vessel 
and the proceeds of the sales of the cargo to the owner thereof, but at the same time 
decreed that the demands for damages were not well founded, for the reason that the 
said supercargo"was not in good form, being obliged to return to America to procure 
papers which were indispensable for the navigation of the vessel and without which 
l\e could not sail. 



732 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

In all, the brig Abigail was detained by the French for a period of ninety-five days 

II. The Abigail was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 92.\i tons bur- 
then, built in New Hampshire in the year 1796, and owned solely by Ebenezer Tib- 
betts, a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Abigail consisted of vats and heads, oak butts with heads, 
shooks and heads, staves, hoops, boards, shingles, soap, beef, rye meal, Indian meal, 
and three saddles and bridles and was of the value per manifest of $2,060.67, the 
same being the property of the said Ebenezer Tibbetts. 

The cargo when sold at Guadaloupe produced the sum of 17,420 livres 8 sols, or 
$1,935.40, being a loss to said owner on said cargo in the sum of $125.27. 

IV. The losses to the said owner of the Abigail and cargo by reason of said seizure, 
etc., were as follows: 

Loss on cargo $125. 27 

Freight earnings 1, 533. 33 

Detention of vessel 1, 456. 00 

Amounting in all to 3, 115. 00 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Abigail as set forth 
in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and* 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in then representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following 
sum from the United States: 

William H. Sise, administrator of Ebenezer Tibbetts, three thousand one 

hundred and fifteen dollars ' $3, 115. 00 

Three thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars. 

There is no claim for the vessel herein, the same having been released. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. • 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER COLUMBUS. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Columbus, Benjamin Mason, master.) 
No. of 
case. Claimants. 

216. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

218. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

1898. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 

2324. Herbert E. Bourne, administrator of Jacob Fisher, v. The United States. 

Stephen F. Fairfield, administrator of William Taylor, v. The United States. 
Samuel M. Came, administrator of John Low, v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 733 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Edwin B. Smith, William T. S. Curtis, and 
Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with 
whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Columbus, whereof Benjamin Mason was then master, sailed on a 
commercial voyage from Kennebunk on or about October 26, 1797, bound to one or 
more ports in the Windward Islands. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was 
seized on the high seas on or about December 3, 1797, by the tribunal of commerce 
and prizes sitting at Basseterre, in the island of Guadeloupe, whereby the same became 
a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The ground of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was that the vessel was sail- 
ing for Martinique, instead of to Curasao, her destination. 

II. The Columbus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 113 30/95 
tons burthen, and was owned by John Low one-third, and Parker Webster one-eighth, 
citizens of the United States, and by other persons whose names are unknown. 

III. The cargo of the Columbus at the time of capture consisted of lumber, but the 
value and ownership thereof is not shown by any competent evidence, nor does it 
appear that the neutrality of the same was shown to the French court. 

IV. The losses to the owners of the Columbus by reason of the seizure and condem- 
nation by the French, in so far as they have appeared herein, were as follows: 

Loss to John Low: 

One-third value of vessel $1, 506. 00 

One-third value of freight earnings 627. 00 

Amounting in all to 2, 133. 00 

Deduct insurance received 550. 00 

Net loss 1, 583. 00 

Loss to Parker Webster: 

One-eighth value of vessel (as far as covered by insurance) 125. 00 

Insurance received 125. 00 

V. December 14, 1797, said John Low effected insurance on his portion of the ves- 
sel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $550, paying therefor a premium of 
25 per cent, by a policy underwritten as follows: 

Tuthill Hubbart $300 

Crowell Hatch 250 

Thereafter, on April 26, 1798, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the 
sum of $550, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the cargo, but the neu- 
trality, value, and ownership of the same not having been shown no recovery can be 
had for sai'd insurance-. 

December 18, 1797, said Parker Webster effected insurance on his portion of the 
vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $125, paying therefor a premium 
of 25 per cent by a policy underwritten as follows: 

Caleb Hopkins $125 

Thereafter, on April 26, 1798, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the- 
sum of $125, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

There was also included in the above policy an insurance "on the cargo, but the 
neutrality, value, and ownership of the same not having been shown no recovery can 
be had for said insurance. 

The said Peter C. Brooks and all of the above underwriters were citizens of the 
United States. 

April 4, 1808, E. Partridge and W. Gooch, administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, for 
and in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption 
by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the under- 



734 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

writing of said Tuthill Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooke 
all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart as an 
underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

December 8, 1801, Isaac Rands, administrator of Caleb Hopkins, for and in con- 
sideration of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said 
Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of 
the said Hopkins in the office of the said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, 
title and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hopkins in the office of said 
Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Columbus 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April. 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part, under the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d 
of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of 
the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831 . 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of the 
vessel were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800; that said claims were relinquished to France. by the Government of the United 
States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national 
claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to 
the following sums from the United States: -Z 

Samuel M. Came, administrator of John Low, one thousand five hundred 
and eighty-three dollars $1, 583. 00 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, four hundred and twenty- 
five dollars 425.00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, two hundred and fiftv 

dollars 250.00 



Amounting in all to two thousand two hundred and fifty-eight dollars . 2, 258. 00 

The estates of Jacob Fisher and William Taylor have proved no valid claims, and 
Parker Webster is not in court. ^5 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant. Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER TWO COUSINS. 

[Court of Claims of the United States. French Spoliations. Decided Mav 13, 1907. Act of January 20> 
1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. I, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Schooner Two Cousins. Elijah Devall, 
master. No. 569. Horace E. Hayden, administrator of David H. Conyngham, surviving partner oi 
Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co., v. United States. No. 1330. The President & Directors of the Insurance 
Company of North America v. United States.] 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were heard before the Court, of Claims on the 19th day of March, 1907. 
The claimants were represented by Thomas Stokes, and the United States, defend- 
ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, 
fohn W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van 
Orsdel. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 735 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upc n the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Two Cousins, Elijah Devall, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
on or about February 11, 1797, from Jeremie bound for Philadelphia. It appears, from 
the master's protest, that a few days thereafter, while peacefully pursuing said voyage, 
she was captured on the high seas by the French privateer La Magdelaine and manned 
with a prize crew; that on the 27th of February, near the island of Cuba, said schooner 
met with a Spanish wailvessel, the Gloria, which fired several cannon shots at her; that 
the prize crew ran the Two Cousins aground and ordered the American seamen to go in 
the boat with them; the master refused to consent thereto; that the prize crew cut 
away the fasts of the boat on deck, the standing and running rigging, sunk the anchors, 
and abandoned the schooner with her American flag flying as aforesaid ; that the master 
resumed command of the schooner after such abandonment, put the main topsail back, 
put the vessel about to leeward, and in a short time got her off from being aground. 
Shortly thereafter the boat of the Spanish war vessel reached the schooner and, taking 
her in tow, carried her alongside of said war vessel, where the master was examined; 
that after the Spanish officers had left the schooner the master called his crew, who had 
been forced to go on shore by the Frenchmen, to come on board, with which command 
they refused to comply. Thereupon the schooner was taken to Habana. The French 
privateer proceeded to Cape Francois and obtained a condemnation of the vessel and 
cargo upon the ground that she had come from Jeremie in violation of the decree of the 
commission of the executive directory declaring Jeremie to be in a state of siege. He 
appeared at Habana and claimed the schooner as his prize. Upon trial by the Spanish 
authorities and the production of said French decree of condemnation said schooner 
and cargo were delivered to the French privateer (each party being required to pay his 
own costs and to share equally the costs made in common) . By virtue of the condem- 
nation by France the vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owner thereof. 

II. The Two Cousins was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 80^ tons 
burthen, was built in Somerset County, Md., in 1795, and was owned by David H.. 
Conyngham and John M. Nesbitt, composing the firm of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co. 

III. The cargo of the Two Cousins at the time of capture consisted of coffee and was 
owned by the firm of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co., owners of the vessel. 

IV. The losses of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co., by reason of the capture and condem- 
nation, were as follows: 

Value of vessel $3, 200. 00 

Freight earnings 1, 333. 33 

Value of cargo 13, 278. 80 

Amounting in all to 17, 812. 13 

Less insurance received 9, 800. 00 

Net loss 8, 012. 13 

V. March 9, 1797, Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co. effected insurance in the office of the 
Insurance Company of North America on the cargo in the sum of $10,000, paying 
therefor a premium of 10 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the said 
insured the sum of $9,800, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. 

As the said insurance was effected subsequent to the date of the illegal capture, 
France is not chargeable with the premium of insurance thereon, and hence no pre- 
mium is allowed herein against the United States. 

VI. The firm of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co. was composed solely of David H. Conyng- 
ham and John M. Nesbitt, said David H. Conyngham being the survivor of the said 
firm. v 

The Insurance Company of North America was and is duly incorporated under the 
laws of the State of Pennsylvania. 

The above claims were presented to the Commissioners of Claims appointed by 
authority of the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1819, both of which 
were disallowed because of insufficient testimony. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Two Cousins, 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 



736 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

# 

growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in then respective capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned, exceptjas'aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

Horace E. Hayden, administrator of David H. Conyngham, surviving 
partner of Conyngham, Nesbit & Co $8, 012. 13 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
nine|thousand eight hundred dollars 9, 800. 00 



17. 812. 13 



Amounting in all to seventeen thousand eight hundred and twelve dollars and 
thirteen cents. 

Peele, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: 

The facts upon which the decision in this case is founded are set forth in finding 1, 
the material substance of which is that after the Two Cousins had been captured by a 
French privateer the privateer was fired upon by a Spanish vessel of war, whereupon 
the prize crew ran the captured vessel aground and compelled her seamen to go on 
the boat with them, but the master refused and remained on the vessel. After the 
prize crew had cut away the fasts of the boat on deck, the standing and running 
rigging, and sunk the anchor they abandoned the vessel, with the American flag 
flying. The master resumed command and soon got the vessel off from being aground, 
when the Spanish war vessel came alongside and took the vessel in tow. The master 
of the American vessel tried to get his crew to come aboard, but they refused, and 
thereupon the Spanish vessel of war towed the Two Cousins to Habana. In the mean- 
time the privateer proceeded to Cape Francois and obtained a condemnation of the 
vessel. The captor appeared in Habana and claimed the vessel so captured, insisting 
that he had not abandoned the vessel or lost sight thereof, and produced the decree 
of condemnation, whereupon the question as to which was entitled to the possession 
of the vessel, the master or the captor, was submitted to a Spanish court, who decided 
in favor of the captor, and the vessel and cargo were delivered to him and were sub- 
sequently sold and became a total loss. 

The single question is, Which of the two nations, France or Spain, is primarily liable. 
The capture and condemnation of the vessel and cargo by the French were both illegal 
independently of the absence of the master and the vessel from the jurisdiction of 
the prize court at the time of condemnation. The taking of the vessel into the port 
of Habana by the Spanish vessel of war was not an unfriendly act, especially as they 
had forced the French to abandon the vessel, and the master was unable to induce 
his crew to return. The controversy over the vessel in the Spanish port was not as 
to the title of the vessel, but as to the possession thereof, which was clearly within 
the jurisdiction of the Spanish court. 

Respecting this question Mr. Justice Story, in the case of The Tilton (5 Mason, 455), 
said: 

"Suits in admiralty, touching property in ships, are of two kinds — one is called 
petitory suits, in which the mere title to the property is litigated and sought to be 
enforced independently of any possession which had previously accompanied or 
sanctioned that title; the other called possessory suits, which seek to restore to the 
owner the possession of which he had been unjustly deprived when that possession 
has followed a legal title, or, as it is sometimes phrased, when there has been a pos- 
session under a claim of title with a constat of property. Until a comparatively recent 
period the court of admiralty exercised undisturbed jurisdiction over both classes of 
cases, as upon principle it is still entitled to do. * * * No doubt exists that the 
admiralty possesses authority to decree restitution of ships wrongfully withheld from 
the owners. And if so, it ought to possess plenary jurisdiction over all the incidents." 






ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 737 

That questions of prize in general belong to the capturing power there can be no 
question, and this was the view of the court in the case of The V Invincible (1 Wheat., 
238). 

In the case of the Brig Alexia (9 Cranch, 359) a libel was filed in the district court 
at New Orleans by a Spanish subject, setting forth that he was the owner of the brig 
Alexia and cargo, and that while on a voyage from Africa to Habana in 1810 he was 
captured by a French vessel and taken into the port of New Orleans. The libelant 
alleged that the French vessel was not commissioned to capture the property of 
Spanish subjects and that she was armed and equipped in the port of New Orleans 
by American citizens contrary to the law of nations. The prayer was for the restitu- 
tion of the vessel with damages. The prize master admitted the capture of the Alexia 
as lawful prize of war and asserted that the French vessel at the time of the capture 
was legally authorized to capture all vessels and their cargoes belonging to the subjects 
of Spain as enemies to France; that after the capture he was compelled to enter the 
port of New Orleans by stress of weather, owing to the inability of the Alexia to keep 
the sea. The court below decreed restitution to the libelant of the ship and cargo, 
and that decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court. 

And so in the case of the Amy Warwick (2 Sprague, 150) the court in substance 
held that a prize court could look beyond the legal title and deal with the beneficial 
interests. 

In the case of the schooner Maxy, Thomas, master (2 Wheat., 122, 129), the vessel, 
commanded by British subjects, was captured by the private armed schooner Cadet, 
an American vessel. The convoy under which the Mary sailed was in sight of her at 
the time of her capture. The Cadet, however, came up to the Maxy so suddenly that 
she had no opportunity to make resistance or give notice to the convoy of her danger. 
On the next day, the Cadet and Maxy being in company, the Paul Jones, an armed 
brig bearing sails of English canvas, pursued the Mary, firing at her. The prize master, 
being convinced that it was an English cruiser, left the Maxy for the shore after throw- 
ing over her anchor. Within ten minutes after the prize crew had left the Maxy the 
British master hoisted the English colors and steered the schooner toward the Paul 
Jones, and she was boarded by a boat from the Paul Jones; and being informed that 
the Maxy was an English vessel the Paul Jones immediately stood off from the land, 
with the Maxy in company, with English colors flying. 

Libels were filed against the Maxy and her cargo in the district court for the district 
of Maine by the master in behalf of himself, the owners and crew of the Cadet, the cap- 
tor, and the Maxy was condemned; but on appeal the decree was reversed, the court 
saying: 

"We are of opinion that the facts stated in this appeal make a clear case of tortious 
dispossession on the part of the Paul Jones. The privateer Cadet had, with great 
gallantry, captured the Maxy and been in possession of her half of a night and day. 
The prize was close in upon the American coast and making for a port which was 
open before her. It was not until the superior sailing of the Paul Jones made it 
manifest that the prize must be cut off from this port, and until she had been repeat- 
edly fired upon, that the prize crew abandoned her. There exists not a pretext in the 
case that this abandonment was voluntary, or would have taken place but for the 
hostile approach of the Paul Jones. Whether the vis majox acted upon the force or 
the fears of the prize crew is immaterial, since actual dispossession ensued. * * * 

'We are of the opinion that the decisions of the circuit and distnict courts should 
be reversed; that the prize should be adjudged to the Cadet, and the case remanded 
for the assessment of reasonable damages in favor of the Cadet. But, considering 
that the prize arrived in safety, and probably in a more secure harbor than that for 
which she was sailing when seized by the Paul -Tones (although it is certainly a case 
for damages), we are of opinion the damages should be moderate." 

The facts in that case are quite similar to the facts in the present case. Here the 
dispossession of the French privateers by the Spanish armed vessel was clearly tor- 
tious as against France, but it was that tortious act against France that released the 
Tiro Cousins and hence as against the United States was not tortious. Nor was the 
friendly act of towing the vessel to Habana a tortious act against the United States, 
especially as the vessel was without a crew except her master. . 

As the Spanish court clearly had jurisdiction to determine the question of posses- 
sion, such decision can not be held a tort, even though possession was restored to the 
captor. Had Spain permitted the captor to resume possession of the vessel and sail 
her out of the port of Habana without judicial determination such act would have 
been a violation of her treaty obligations with the United States to protect American 
vessels in Spanish waters, and a claim might then have arisen against Spain as a 
jointfeasox with France. 

S. Hep. 382, 60-1 47 



738 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The Two Cousins having been captured by the French privateer in the open sea, 
the decision to restore the vessel to the captor was strictly within the rules of inter- 
national law, as abandonment of a captured vessel can only take place by the volun- 
tary act of the captor and without cause. Hence the forced abandonment of a vessel, 
as in the present case, can not be regarded as a desertion thereof by the captor, nor 
would a belligerent captor under such circumstances be deprived by a neutral of any 
rights they might have acquired by virtue of the capture. (The Mary, Thomas, 
supra.) In other words, in the language of the court in the case of McDonough v. 
Dannery (3 Dall., 188, 198), "In determining the question of property, we think that 
immediately on the capture the captors acquired such a right as no neutral nation 
could justly impugn or destroy; and, consequently, we can not say that the abandon- 
ment of the Mary Ford, under the circumstances of this case, revived and restored 
the interest of the original British proprietors." 

We think the same rule may be applied in the present case: France, through her 
privateer, having made the capture, the captor had plenary dominion over the cap- 
tured property, and that right cculd not be diminished by the subsequent forcible 
abandonment, even though the act of Spain be deemed a capture. (The Mary, 
Thomas, supra, 1 C. Rob.. 135, 189; The Cosmopolite, 3 C. Rob., 333.) 

If the captor has abandoned the prize, Spain, when her vessel of war took posses- 
sion, would have been entitled to salvage (McDonough v. Dannery, supra), but Spain 
did not regard the vessel as a deserted one. On the contrary, the Spanish court 
held that the captor had not abandoned the vessel and was therefore entitled to 
possession. If the action of the Spanish vessel had been wrongful as against the 
Two Cousins, the master of the latter would have been entitled not only to restitution 
but to damages under the authorities heretofore cited, but no such claim was made. 
On the contrary, each party was required to pay the costs he had made and to share 
equally the costs made in common. 

The capture of the vessel by the French privateer being illegal was a tort, and the 
forcible abandonment of the vessel can not be taken advantage of by France as a 
defense on the theory of the primary liability of Spain, who forced the abandonment, 
as the captor not only denied the abandonment but persisted in claiming the vessel 
by procuring her condemnation in French territory and then relying upon that decree 
to secure both from the Spanish authorities and the master of the Two Cousins the 
release of the vessel. It is therefore clear that France could not set up by way of 
defense that, because Spain is liable therefore France is exonerated . 

Nor can it be said that the facts of this case render Spain liable at all, unless she 
has made herself liable by subsequent treaties, and as to that-let us examine. 

By the treaty of August 11, 1802 (8 Stat. L., 198), a board of commissioners was 
provided for to receive all claims by the subjects and citizens of the respective nations 
claiming "compensation for the losses, damages, or injuries sustained by them in 
consequence of the excesses committed by Spanish subjects on American citizens." 

That treaty was followed by the one of February 22, 1819 (8 Stat. L., 252), by 
which Florida was ceded to the United States in consideration of $5,000,000, to be 
applied by the United States in exonerating Spain from all demands in future on 
account of the claims of their citizens to which the renunciations contained in the 
treaty extend, and by the ninth article of said treaty the respective parties renounced 
"all claims for damages or injuries which they themselves, as well as their respective 
citizens and subjects, may have suffered until the time of signing the treaty." 

On behalf of the United States it was provided therein that the renunciations 
should extend — 

"1. To all the injuries mentioned in the convention of August 11, 1809., heretofore 
referred to. 

"2. To all claims on account of prizes made by French privateers and condemned 
by French consuls within the territory and jurisdiction of Spain. 

"3. To all claims of indemnities on account of the suspension of the right of deposit 
at New Orleans in 1802. 

"4. To all claims of citizens of the United States upon the Government of Spain, 
arising from the unlawful seizures at sea, and in the ports and territories of Spain, or 
the Spanish colonies. 

"5. To all claims of citizens of the United States upon the Spanish Government, 
statements of which, soliciting the interposition of the Government of the United 
States, have been presented to the Department of State, or to the minister of the 
United States in Spain, since the date of the convention of 1802 and until the signa- 
ture of this treaty." 

No "losses", damages, or injuries" were sustained by the claimants herein by reason 
of excesses committed by Spanish subjects under the treaty of 1802. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 739 

Nor did the claim herein arise under the second or third-class mentioned in the 
treaty of 1819, or under the fourth class, as the forcible dispossession of the captor, 
followed by towing the Two Cousins into Habana. was not a wrongful seizure at sea. 
The claim does not fall within the fifth class, as it is not shown that the claim was 
presented to the State Department, as therein provided, as a claim against Spain, 
prior to the signing of the treaty of 1819. 

But the defendants contend that because the claim was presented to the commis- 
sioners appointed under the treaty of 1819, therefore the claimants elected to look to 
Spain and by that act released France. 

The claim herein was not a claim against Spain either separately or jointly, and 
therefore did not fall within the class of claims renounced by the United States. 
Hence its presentation to the commissioners under the treaty of 1819 did not operate 
as an election, as an election in such a case presupposes a joint liability. France 
was alone liable for the illegal capture and condemnation, and continued to persist 
in her wrongful act, and therefore the filing of the claim before the commissioners 
under the treaty of 1819 and its disallowance because of insufficient testimony can 
not avail as a defense to France, and therefore not to the United States. 

Where one has inconsistent rights or remedies of which he may avail himself, a 
choice of one is held an election not to pursue the other, but that rule does not apply 
to coexisting and consistent remedies. ( F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Decker, 80 N. Y., 
8; N. Y. Land Improvement Co. v. Chapman, 118 N. Y., 288.) 

But here the question is not one of inconsistent remedies or rights against the same 
party, but whether two nations are liable as joint tort feasors for unlawful captures 
of American vessels or whether Spain is liable separately for the loss of the Two 
Cousins and her cargo by reason of excesses committed by Spanish subjects on 
America'n citizens. As Spain is not shown to have aided France in any unlawful 
way, she can not be charged with joint liability therewith, and as the act of Spain 
was not unlawful as against the United States no separate liability arose against her 
in favor of the claimants; and hence the filing of a claim against Spain under the 
treaty of '1819 under the circumstances of this case did not operate as an election 
releasing France. 

In the case of the Reliance (37 C. Cls. R., 262), where the vessel was seized in 
Swedish waters and carried into a Swedish port, and while there condemned by a 
French court sitting in French territory, the court held, on the motion for a new 
trial (41 C. Cls. R., 67), that the United States had the right to present the claim 
either to Sweden, who owed protection to the American vessel, or to France, who 
seized the vessel; and, further, that the owners had the right to ask their Government 
to prosecute the claim against either one or the other offending parties; and, having 
filed the claim in the State Department requesting the United States to ask satis- 
faction from the Swedish Government, it was an election, so far as the owners of the 
vessel could make it, to hold the Swedish Government; and that being true, it was 
not one of the claims relinquished by France in consideration of the relinquishment 
of France of her claims against the United States. 

In that case the seizure was in Swedish waters, and therefore Sweden by not pro- 
tecting the vessel violated her treaty with the United States, which rendered her a 
tort feasor with France, if not primarily liable, and hence the owners by electing to 
look to Sweden, it was held, thereby relinquished their claims against France. 

Tn the present case, as the claim was never one against Spain, either separately or 
jointly, but arose by reason of the illegal capture and condemnation by France, it 
was one of the claims released by the second article of the treaty of 1800 in considera- 
tion of the release by France of certain claims of her citizens against the United States. 
\r Spain being a neutral, her wrong was against France, which she judicially recog- 
nized by decreeing possession of the vessel to the captor. That is to say, the status 
quo of the captured vessel was restored to the captor, and no damages were claimed 
by the master of the Two Cousins against Spain for her acts. 

jjpFven if the master of the privateer had directed the prize master to take the cap- 
tured vessel into a Spanish port, it would not have been an illegal act (The Hiram, 41 
C. Cls. R., 12). If not, and while there a controversy had arisen as to who was enti- 
tled to the possession of the captured vessel, the courts of Spain would have been 
open to adjudicate that question. Nor would Spain have rendered herself liable by 
permitting the sale of an American vessel under a decree of a prize court sitting in 
French territory (Ship Star, 35 C. Cls., 387). 

!H Respecting the insurance on the vessel effected subsequent to the capture, the 
court in the case of the schooner John Eason (37 C. Cls. R., 443) held that where the 
captured vessel had been insured after its condemnation, the premium therefor was 
not a charge against France, as the liability of France was limited to the value of the 
property at the time of the illegal seizure or condemnation. In that case the insur- 
ance was effected after the condemnation, while in the present case the insurance was 



740 allowance of certain claims. 

effected before the condemnation but after the illegal seizure, and we think the same 
principle applies, as the liability of France could not be augmented subsequent to 
the illegal seizure, though the insurance between the parties was valid. 

The court's conclusions are that the claimants are entitled to the allowance set 
forth in the findings, which findings, together with this opinion, will be certified to 
Congress. 

By the Court. 

Filed May 13, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 31st day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER UNITY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Unity, J. W. Latouche, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

921. David Stewart, administrator of Henry Messonnier, v. The United States. 
4026. Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John McFadon, ?;. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqs , and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assist- 
ant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant 
Attorney- General J. A Van Orsdel. \ 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the fa,cts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Unity, whereof J. W. Latouche was then master, sailed on a com- 
mercial voyage December 20, 1794, from Baltimore bound to Monte Christo. While 
peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high 'seas January 21, 1795, by 
the French privateer Ambuscade, Captain Daligand, and carried into Port de Prix 
and both vessel and cargo thereafter condemned as good prize and ordered sold for 
the benefit of the captors by decree of the tribunal of prizes sitting at Cape Francois, 
dated February 18, 1795, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: 

"Considering that from the papers and from the orders given to Captain Latouche 
by Messonnier the conclusive proof appears of the unfortunate prediction (predilec- 
tion?) of this owner for the ports of ihe colony sold to the enemies of the Republic; 
that the truth of this is confirmed by the reply of Pierre Jenson to the question as 
to what the voyage was, to this effect — that he had made two voyages for the same 
house (Messonnier) to Leogane since the month of June last, and this particular voy- 
age is the third; the same conclusion can be inferred from the deposition of John S. 
Chany. 

"Considering that the letter of Com. Creuze to Cazimio Creuze, his son, at St. Mark, 
though without signature, a letter which Mairant. in his second examination has not 
denied to be that with which he had been charged by her contains the proof, as it were, 
that Mairant is the owner of the Unity. 'Monsieur Mairant,' said this woman, 'has 
just informed me, my dear son, that he must leave to-day for St. Mark in a vessel of 
which he is the owner, and has promised to take you my letter with certainty and 
likewise to charge himself to bring to me everything you can send me by him. Lad. 
Lau. Mairant was connected with the C — Creuze, which he had known at the Cape, 
under the government of M. Bellecombe.' He told her that he wa& going to St. Mark 
in a vessel owned by him — no secrets between those individuals! He promised her to 
charge himself with everything her son could send her; perhaps likewise he promised 
her to take charge of the servants which she asks from her 3on, and would take them 
from the colony as citizens to become slaves in America. 

" Considering that Mairant, having emigrated at the time of the proclamation of Civil 
Commissioner Sonthanax of April 28, 1793, being under the ban of proscription pro- 
nounced against all emigrants, had been obliged to masque his operations, as it were, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 741 

in order to avoid confiscation, and that it had not been difficult for him to obtain, 
under the cloak of Messonnier, the document which Captain Latouche carries. 

"Considering that if Mairant had not feared the penalties pronounced against emi- 
grants and if he had really had the intention of returning into the French Republic, 
he had a multitude of opportunities to go to the Cape, opportunities which he doubt- 
less had preferred to that of Monte Christo, with which the Republic had no relations, 
if his personal interests did not determine the preference of the one over the other. 

"That the passport which he obtained for [illegible] proved nothing if not the desire 
he had to come to the Mole, where it is well known that he had connections and large 
interests. 

"Considering that the omission of the name of this passenger (Mairant) on the role 
d'6quipage of the schooner Unity is an intentional omission, a concerted ruse between 
Messonnier, Captain Latouche, and Mairant, to conceal the course of the latter, to 
screen from the knowledge of the Republic the return of Mairant into the colony, and 
a protection by this means from any confiscation; but this omission, whatever may 
be the object, is an infraction of the [illegible] by Captain Latouche, as likewise a 
crime against the French Republic. 

" Considering that it is an open violation of the laws of neutrality to give his name 
to an emigrant to facilitate his entry into the colony and to favor his relations and 
commerce with the city sold to foreign powers, that to tolerate this strategem and all 
those which are daily employed to circumvent France is to expose the colony to a 
realization of the misfortunes against which the ambassador of the Republic to the 
United States of America has wished to provide by his official correspondence. It 
tends to foil the criminal courts, which exist for this purpose and to punish the authors 
and participants by ordering the confiscation of everything which appears suspicious 
from the conclusions without fear of injuring the rights of neutrals. 

"Considering, finally, that the provisions of Article VII of the marine ordinance, 
title 3, as to prizes, is applicable to the present case." 

II. The Unity was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 54f-i tons burthen; 
built in the year 1793 and owned solely by Henry Messonnier, a citizen of the United 
States, residing in Baltimore. 

III. The cargo of the Unity consisted of dry goods, flour, herring, claret, beef, 
salmon, candles, empty bags, hats, and boots and was the property of the said Henry 
Messonnier and was of the value (as far as proven) of $1,407.08. 

IV. The losses to said Henry Messonnier by reason of the seizure and condemnation 
of the -Unity and cargo were as follows; 

Value of vessel $2, 160. 00 

Freight earnings 900. 00 

Value of cargo (as far as proven) 1, 407. 08 

Amounting in all to 4, 467. 08 

The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for 
whom he appears, and the said David Stewart has otherwise proved to the satisfaction 
of the court that the person for whose estate he has filed claim is in fact the same person 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Unity as set forth in 
the preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim growing 
out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of 
the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty 
between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said 
treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 
against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from 
the United States: 

David Stewart, administrator of Henry Messonnier, four thousand four hun- 
dred and sixty-seven dollars and eight cents $4, 467. 08 



742 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAHST CLAIMS. 

Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John Mcfadon, has proved no valid claim, and 
the petition is dismissed. f"** 

By the Court. 

Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 16th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] f John Randolph, < 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

BRIG FANNY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to 

R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Fanny, John Gould, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2334. Mary Wise Moody, administratrix of the estate of Daniel Wise, deceased, v. 

The United States. 
2522. Albert M. Welch, administrator of Thomas Perkins 3d, deceased, v. The 

United States. 
37. Edward D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, deceased, v. The United 

States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Edwin B. Smith, William T. S. Curtis, and 
Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistants in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope 
Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Fanny, John Gould, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Ken- 
nebunk, in the then State of Massachusetts, on the 27th day of November, 1796, bound 
for Leogane, Hispaniola. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured 
on the high seas on the 30th day of December, 1796, by the French privateer Loyaute, 
Captain Dolhabaret, and carried into Port de Paix. On the 28th day of January, 1797, 
the Fanny and her cargo were condemned by the French prize tribunal sitting at Cape 
Francois on the following grounds: 

"That the master of said vessel did not have a certificate of the cargo authenticated 
in the usual style by the officers of the port whence he sailed, as required by the 
twenty-fifth article of the treaty of commerce and amity between France and the 
United States of America, of 1778, in the following words: 'In case either of the parties 
should be engaged in a war it has been equally agreed that the vessels as mentioned 
shall be provided not only with passports but with certificates containing the details 
of cargo and the place whence the vessel sailed. Certificates shall be made out by 
the officers of the port whence the vessel sailed in the accustomed form.' " 

II. The Fanny was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 143|§ tons bur- 
den, and was owned by Daniel Wise, (^ 5 ) three twenty-seconds; Oliver Keating, 
(Jz) eight twenty-seconds; Thomas Perkins 3d, (^j eight twenty-seconds, and Joseph 
Perkins, (^ 2 ) three twenty-seconds, all of whom were citizens of the United States. 
Said vessel was registered in the year 1796, but it does not appear when she was built. 

III. The cargo of the Fanny ^ at the time of capture consisted of lumber, but the 
amount and ownership thereof is not shown by any competent evidence. 

The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Fanny and cargo were 
as follows; 

Value of vessel $5, 005. 00 

Freight earnings 2, 383. 33 

Premium of insurance paid 275. 00 

Total loss 7,663.33 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 743 

The losses sustained by Thomas Perkins 3d were: 

2 8 3 value of vessel $1, 820. 00 

75 of freight earnings 866. 66 

7,% of premium of insurance 100. 00 

Amounting in all to 2, 786. 66 

Less insurance received ( ^) 941. 66 

Net loss 1,845.00 

The losses sustained by Daniel Wise were: 

A value of vessel $682. 50 

A of freight earnings 325. 00 

■$$ of premium of insurance 37. 50 

• Amounting in all to 1 , 045. 00 

Deduct insurance received (A) 256. 82 

Net loss 788. 18 

IV. William Gray insured said vessel for the owners thereof on said voyage in the 
sum of £550, or $1,883.33, at a premium of 15 per cent. Thereafter said William Gray, 
who was a citizen of the United States, paid to the said owners the sum of $1,883.33 
as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. 

It does not appear who composed the firm of Daniel Wise & Co. , or that said firm 
had any interest in said vessel or cargo. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persona 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Fanny, 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spam concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States. 

Mary Wise Moody, administratrix of Daniel Wise, seven hundred and eighty- 
eight dollars and eighteen cents $788. 18 

Albert M. Welch, administrator of Thomas Perkins 3d, one thousand eight 
hundred and forty-five dollars 1, 845. 00 

Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, one thousand eight 
hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirty- three cents 1, 883. 33 



Amounting in all to four thousand five hundred and sixteen dollars 
and fifty-one cents 4, 516. 51 

Oliver Keating and Joseph Perkins, part owners of the vessel herein, are not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copv: 

Test this 16th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John ^Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



744 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

SCHOONER SWAN. 

[Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel, schooner Swan, Samuel Shaw, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2231. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Abraham Touro, v. The United States. 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 

Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 

William P. Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
2884. Mary E. Carter, administratrix of Thomas Carter, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant 
in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attor- 
ney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of cotmsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Sivan, Samuel Shaw, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Swans Island July 20, 1799, bound to St. Bartholomew. While peacefully pursuing 
said voyage she was seized by the French privateer L'Espoir and carried to Point-a- 
Pitre, Guadaloupe. On August 16, 1799, said vessel and cargo were condemned by 
the tribunal of commerce and prize sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, on the follow- 
ing grounds: 

"That the neutrality of the cargo is not sufficiently established. 
"That the passport carried by the said captain is not in conformity with the treaty 
of February 6, 1778. 

"That the captain has no rdle d'equipage/' 

II. The schooner Swan was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 90 |J tons 
burthen; built at Swans Island, Mass., in the year 1797, and owned solely by Joseph 
Prince, a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Swan at the time of seizure consisted of lumber, but the quan- 
tity and value of the same is not shown by the evidence. 

IV. The value of the vessel was in excess of $1,500, for which insurance was effected 
thereon as stated below. 

V. September 6, 1799, Joseph Prince, owner of the vessel, effected insurance on the 
same in the office of Abraham Touro, insurance broker of Boston, to the amount of 
$1,500, paying therefor a premium of 25 per cent, said policy being underwritten by 
the following persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: 

Crowell Hatch $500. 00 

James Prince 300. 00 

Samuel Dexter 300. 00 

John C. Jones 400. 00 

Thereafter said Abraham Touro, as agent for the underwriters, paid the said assured 
the sum of $1,500, being in full for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Swan, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 745 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1880; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States: 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, five hundred dollars $500. 00 

Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, three hundred dollars 300. 00 

William P. Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, three hundred dollars. 300. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, four hundred dollars... 400.00 

Amounting in all to one thousand five hundred dollars 1, 500. 00 

Petition No. 2884, Mary E. Carter, administratrix of Thomas Carter, is dismissed, 
his ownership of the vessel not having been shown. 
The owner of the cargo is not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of December,^. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court nf Claims. 

SCHOONER HANNAH, VOAX, MASTER 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1 Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Hannah, James H. Voax, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

286. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter Chardon Brooks, v. The United States. 
Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 
A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. 
1908. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
2399. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 
2983. Charles U. Cotting, administrator of David Child, otherwise called David W. 
Child, v. The United States. 
Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., v. The United 
States. 
3529. Charles T. Loveiing, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 
Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. 
Henry Parkman, administrator of John Lovett, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the' evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

The schooner Hannah, James H. Voax, master, sailed on a commercial voyage April 
7, 1800, from Boston bound to the island of Saint Thomas. While peacefully pursuing 
said voyage she was seized on the high seas May 1, 1800, by the French privateer 
L' Amour de la Patrie, Captain Hirigoyen, taken to Guadeloupe by a prize master, and 
there condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes on May 11, 1800, 
whereby both vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were: 

' ' That the sea letter was not signed by an officer of marine . 

"That the vessel carried no role d'equipage." 



746 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

II . Tlie Hannah was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 45ff tons burthen, 
built in Massachusetts in the year 1799, and owned solely by William Marshall, jr., and 
David Child, citizens of the United States, residing in Boston. 

III. The cargo of the Hannah consisted of beef, bacon, salt, butter, cheese, flour, 
tobacco, candles, pork, salmon, and lard and was owned solely by said William Mar- 
shall, jr., and David Child. 

IV. The losses to the said owners of vessel and cargo by reason of the premises were 
as follows, viz: 

Value of vessel - $1, 800. 00 

Freight earnings 750. 00 

Value of cargo 5,268.55 

Premiums of insurance paid 800. 00 

Amounting in all to , 8, 618. 55 

Deduct insurance received 8, 000. 00 



Net loss 618.55 



Net loss of William Marshall, jr 309. 28 

Net loss of David Child 309. 27 

V. April 7, 1800, William Marshall, jr., and David Child, effected through the office 
of Peter C. Brooks, insurance in the sum of $6,500, to wit, $1,500 on the vessel and 
$5,000 on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, the policy being under- 
written as follows: 

Crowell Hatch $1,000 j Tuthill Hubbart $1,000 

James Prince 500 ' John C. Jones 1, 000 

Benjamin Sumner 500 Jeffrey & Russell 1,000 

Nathaniel Fellowes 1, 000 ! William Smith 500 

Thereafter, Peter C. Brooks, as agent as aforesaid, paid to William Marshall, jr., and 
David Child $6,500 in full for a total loss on the policy. 

February 1, 1804, Benjamin Sumner, for and in consideration of $600 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities 
and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned 
to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as 
an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

April 4, 1808, the administrators of said Tuthill Hubbart for and in consideration of 
$60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all 
and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said 
Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance 
done by said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50, to him paid by 
Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any liabilities arising 
from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, 
title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of 
said Brooks. 

April 28, 1800, William Marshall, jr., and David Child effected further insurance 
through the office of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $1,500, to wit, $500 on the vessel and 
cargo, and $1,000 on the freight, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent, the policy 
being underwritten as follows: 

Daniel Sargent $500 

Israel Thomdike 700 

John Lovett 300 

Thereafter, Joseph Taylor, as agent, paid the said assured the sum of $1,500 in full 
for a total loss on the policy, but the freight being valued at $750 there was an over- 
insurance on this policy in the sum of $250, and the respective underwriters are there- 
fore only entitled to recover 83 J per cent of the amount underwritten by them. Their 
loss is therefore as follows: 

Daniel Sargent .' $416. 67 

Israel Thomdike 583. 33 

John Lovett 1 250. 00 

All of the above underwriters were citizens of the United States. 
The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 747 

the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Hannah, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Charles U. Cotting, administrator of David W. Child, three hundred and nine 

dollars and twenty-seven cents. . . , $309. 27 

Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., three hundred 

and nine dollars and twenty-eight cents 309. 28 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand dollars 2, 000. 00 

Morton Prince, administrator of Jame Prince, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand 

dollars 1, 000. 00 

Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, for and on behalf of the 

firm of Jeffrey & Russell, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand dollars. . 1, 000. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, four hundred and 

sixteen dollars and sixty-seven cents 416. 67 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, five hundred and 

eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents 583. 33 

Henry Parkman, administrator of John Lovett, two hundred and fifty dol- 
lars 250. 00 

Amounting in all to eight thousand three hundred and sixty-eight 

dollars and fifty-five cents 8, 368. 55 

The difference between the total loss as set forthlin Paragraph IV and the amount 
allowed herein arises from the fact of overinsurance on freight as set out in Paragraph V, 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy: 

Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP SCRUB. 

Court of Claims. French spoliation. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vessel sloop Scrub, 

John Russell, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

4458. Newton Dexter, administrator of the estate of Joseph Martin, deceased, v. The 
United States. 

Supplementary Findings. 

conclusions of pact. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of February, 1907. 
The claimant was represented by Edward Lander, esq., and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 



748 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A*. 
Van Orsdel. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The sloop Scrub, a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 71|| tons bur- 
den, whereof John Russell was master and Benjamin Williams was owner, both citi- 
zens of the United States, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 5th of April, 1797, 
from Kingston, Jamaica, having on board a cargo of merchandise bound for Habana 
and thence to some port in Connecticut. 

II. The cargo was the property of said Benjamin Williams, and was of the value of 
$1,307. 

Said vessel while peacefully pursuing her voyage, laden as aforesaid, was captured 
on the 10th of April, 1797, by the French corsair La Revanche, Capt. Louis Nadal, 
and carried into Habana, and on or about the 20th of April, 1797, was, together with 
the cargo, condemned by a French tribunal and the maritime agent of the French 
Republic at the island of Cuba, resident at Habana, charged with the entire execution 
of the decree. ' 

III. The following is a copy of the decree of condemnation: 

"Having seen the procedure had the 22d Prairial last by Maurice Rondineau, 
maritime agent of the Republic at the island of Cuba, residing at Havana, in regard 
to the prize of the ship Scrub, from the port of Wilmington, Capt. Jno. Russell, cap- 
tured the 30th Germinal last by the corsair La Revanche, Capt. Louis Nadal, and 
brought into Havana; • 

"Considering that it results from the procedure that the said ship had been captured 
coming out of the port of Kingston, island of Jamaica, whence she had been despatched 
the 3d of April, 1797; 

"Considering that the resolution of the executive directory of the 14th Messidor, 
year 4. prescribes to all commanders of the ships of the Republic and to all captains 
of corsairs particular to treat all neutral ship in the same way that they have allowed 
themselves to be treated by the English; 

' ' Considering that it is of wide notoriety that the agents of the British Government 
in the Antiles do not respect any neutral flag, and notably those of the United States; 
that this notoriety is confirmed by numerous declarations made or deposed to the 
secretary-ship general of the commission; that even various commanders of English 
men of war have furnished material proof of this conduct towards the ships of the 
United States of America, which proofs will be found again likewise in the archives 
of the commission; 

' ' Considering that it is only since the official reception of the said resolution of the 
executive directory, and after the notoriety of the conduct of the agents of the English 
Government in the Antilles toward neutral ships, and especially towards those of 
the United States of America, that the commission has made its decree of the 18th 
Nivose last, by which it declares good prize all neutral ships going into English ports 
or which are coming out; 

"The commission has decreed and does decree that the ship Scrub, of Wilmington, 
Capt. Jno. Russell, taken the 30th Germinal last by the corsair La Revanche, Capt. Louis 
Nadal, and taken into Havana, is a good prize, as well as her cargo, and all that which 
can appertain thereto, and that all shall be sold to the profit of the captors, owners, 
and interested parties in the outfit of the said corsair; that consequently all guardians 
or other detainers of the said ship, in whole or part, of her cargo, circumstances, and 
appendages, are held to give up the possession of it, into the hand of the said captain 
captor or his representatives. 

"The present decree will be notified to whom it may concern at the diligence of 
the said captain captor or his representative. 

"The maritime agent of the Republic at the island of Cuba, resident at Havana, 
is charged with the entire execution of the present decree." 

IV. In 1797 Benjamin Williams obtained a policy of insurance from John Mason, 
insurance broker, of Providence, R. I., in the sum of $3,500 "on the sloop Scrub and her 
appurtenances; also on her cargo on board from Newburn, North Carolina, to Jamaica, 
at and from thence to any one port in the United States, with liberty to touch at 
Habana on her homeward passage, against all risks." Said policy was underwritten, 
among others, by Joseph Martin in the sum of $300. 

V. On October 10, 1797, Joseph Martin, through his agent, John Mason, paid to 
said Benjamin Williams the said sum of $300. Said Joseph Martin was a native 
citizen of the United States. 

VI. The claimant has obtained letters of administration for the party whom he 
represents, and has otherwise proven to the satisfaction of the court that the person 
on whose estate he is administrator, is the same person who suffered loss through the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 749 

capture of the sloop Scrub and cargo, as set forth in the preceding findings, to wit, 
in case No. 4458, Newton Dexter, administrator of the estate of Joseph Martin, deceased. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and was not a claim grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole, or in part, under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22nd 
day of February, 1819, and was not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant below named in the conclusion of law in his representative capacity, 
is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owner and insurer had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following 
sum from the United States: 

Newton Dexter, administrator of the estate of Joseph Martin, deceased, to the 

sum of three hundred dollars $300.00 

By the Court. 
Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG LUCY, GRANT, MASTER. 

(Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Lucy, Christopher Grant, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

59. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, v. The United States. 
1038. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
2042. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 
2985 i Daniel W. Salisbury, executor of Samuel Salisbury, v. The United States. 
(Louis Higginson, administrator of Stephen Higginson, v. The United States 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 23d day of October, 1906. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, 
Edward Lander, and Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, 
by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John 
W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

^CONCLUSIONS OI< FACT. 

The majority of the court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and 
considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to 
be as follows: 

I. The brig Lucy, whereof Christopher Grant was master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage August 18, 1798, from Penobscot River bound to Martinico. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 26th day 
of September, 1798, by the French privateer La Revanche, Captain Liebbe, who took 
the master and his crew from on board their vessel and carried said brig Lucy into 
Guadaloupe, where the said master and his crew were sent on board a prison ship, 
without being allowed to get a protest or a copy of the condemnation. He was exam- 
ined in preparatorio September 28, 1798, while imprisoned. 

Thereafter, to wit, September 30, 1798 (Vendemaire 9, year 7), said vessel and 
cargo were condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting 
at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. |f 



750 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decere, were as follows: 

First. That the said brig Lucy was bound for Martinique, an island in the possession 

of the English. 

Second. That her sea papers were not in order, there being no list of the crew, no 

invoice, nor bill of lading. 

II. The brig Lucy was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 139^§ tons 
burthen, was built at Kennebunk in the year 1792, and was owned by Stephen Hig- 
ginson, jr., and Samuel Salisbury, jr., citizens of the United States, each one-half. 

III. The cargo of the brig Lucy at the time of capture consisted of oil, shingles, 
boards, fish, beef, and pork, and was owned by said Salisbury and Higginson. 

IV. The loss to the said Salisbury and Higginson, the owners of the vessel and 
cargo, was as follows: 

Value of vessel $4, 865. 00 

Value of cargo '. 2,435.00 

Freight earnings 2, 318. 00 

Premiums of insurance paid 2, 061. 66 

11, 679. 66 
Deduct insurance received ' 7, 500. 00 

Loss to Salisbury and Higginson 4, 179. 66 

V. June 16, 1798, Salisbury and Higginson effected insurance on said vessel and 
cargo in the sum of $7,500 (half on each) in the office of Peter C. Brooks for said voyage, 
paying therefor a premium of 33J per cent. . 

The underwriters on said policy, all of whom were citizens of the United States, and 
the amounts subscribed by each are as follows: 

Crowell Hatch $1, 000. 00 

Caleb Hopkins 1,000.00 

William Smith 1,000.00 

David Greene 1,000.00 

William Gray, jr 1, 000. 00 

William Stackpole 500.00 

Tuthill Hubbart 1,000.00 

Nathaniel Fellowes 1,000.00 

Thereafter the said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of 
$7,500, being a total loss to each of said underwriters of the amount underwritten by 
them. 

Said Salisbury and Higginson insured the cargo in the sum of $3,750, the value of the 
said cargo being $2,435. They were therefore overinsured in the sum of $1,315. 

VI. December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consid- 
eration of the sum of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by 
the said Brooks of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hopkins 
in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in 
and to all insurance done by the said Hopkins in the office of the said Brooks. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith, for and in consideration of $3,715.50, and the 
assumption of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Smith in the 
office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and 
to all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. 

December 23, 1801, David Greene, for and in consideration of $6,000, and the assump- 
tion of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Greene in the office 
of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all 
insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. 

April 14, 1808, Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000, and the assump- 
tion of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart in the office 
of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all 
insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. 

February 1, 1804, William Stackpole, for and in consideration of $8,000, and the 
assumption of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Stackpole in the 
office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to 
all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. 

VII. The claimants herein have produced letters upon the estates of their decedents, 
and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the parties they repre- 
sent are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and con- 
demnation of the brig Lucy as aforesaid. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 751 

VIII. Said claims wore not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day 
of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of 
the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The majority of the court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and con- 
demnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity 
therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- 
tween the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- 
tember, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of 
the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain 
national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled 
to the following sums from the United States: 

Daniel W. Salisbury, surviving executor of Samuel Salisbury, two thou- 
sand and eighty-nine dollars and eighty-three cents. $2, 089. 83 

Louis Higginson, administrator of Stephen Higginson, two thousand and 

eighty-nine dollars and eighty-three cents 2, 089. 83 

Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, four thousand five 

hundred dollars ' 4, 500. 00 

Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand 

dollars ' 1, 000 . 00 



Amounting in all to eleven thousand six hundred and seventy-nine 

dollars and sixty -six cents 11, 679. 66 

By the Court. 
\ Filed February 18, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 13th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SLOOP JAMES. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vessel sloop James, 

Robert Palmer, master.] 
No. of 
case. . Claimant. 

4797. George Meade, administrator of the estate of Anthony Butler, v. The United 
States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This claim was tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. 

The claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis, and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was associated Assistant Attorney-General 
J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and considering the same with the briefs of counsel 
on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The sloop James, Robert Palmer, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or 
about the 18th day of February, 1797, bound from the port of Philadelphia, Pa., to 
L'ance a Vean, laden with a cargo of flour, beef, wine, and similar merchandise. 
While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on March 
15, 1797, by the French privateer L Enfant Trouve, Capt. Pierre Brard, and conducted 
into the French port of Jean Rabel, and thereafter, on the 26th day of April, 1797, 
both vessel and cargo were condemned by the French prize tribunal sitting in the 
French port of Cape Francois, and became a total loss to the owners thereof. 



752 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The ground for said condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was as follows: 
That she was bound, when captured, for Cape Nicholas Mole, a place under the 
protection of the French Government. 

II. The sloop James was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 80f § tons 
burthen, built at Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, in the year 1793, and 
was owned solely by Anthony Butler, a citizen of the United States. 

III. The cargo consisted of wine, fruit, oil, beef, shooks, flour, dry goods, and 
silversmiths' tools, but the value of the same and the owners thereof do not appear. 

IV. The loss to Anthony Butler by reason of the capture and condemnation afore- 
said was as follows: 

Value of vessel $3, 200 

Freight earnings .' 1, 333 

Amounting in all to 4, 533 

The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for 
whom he appears, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the. 

f)erson for whose estate he has filed claim is in fact the same person who suffered 
oss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop James, as set forth in the 
preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim growing 
out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between 
the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon 
the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following 
sum from the United States: 

George Meade, administrator of the estate of Anthony Butler, four thousand 
five hundred and thirty-three dollars $4, 533 

Amounting in all to four thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars ($4,533). 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 6th day of February, A. D. 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG ELIZA. 

Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Brig Eliza, Christopher O'Conner, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

737. President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. The 

United States. 
831. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. The United States. 
2318. Samuel Bell, administrator of John G. Wachsmuth, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 
1907. 

The claimants were represented by Thomas Stokes, esq., and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. 
Van Orsdel. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 753 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. Brig Eliza, Christopher O'Conner, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Philadelphia on March 12, 1798, bound for St. Nicholas" Mole and Port au Prince. 
While peacefully pursuing her said voyage she was seized on the high seas on April 
8, 1798, by the French privateer L' Union, Capt Andrew Scean (or Sceau), and car- 
ried into Port de Paix. On April 13, 1798, vessel and cargo were condemned by the 
French tribunal of prize sitting at Cape Francais. The grounds of condemnation, as 
stated in the decree, were as follows: 

"Considering that there does result from the papers, as well maritime as commercial 
of the said brig, the undeniable proof that she was bound for Port au Prince and the 
Mole; 

"Considering that Port au Prince and the Mole are ports rebels to the Republic, 
given up to the British, occupied and defended by the emigrants under the protection 
of the British Government; 

"Considering, finally, that the decree of the commission delegated by the French 
Government to the Leeward Islands, dated the 6 Nivose by the fifth year, and con- 
firmed by the decree of the commission, dated the 27th Vendemaire last, does declare 
to be good prize all neutral vessels taken bound to or from the ports of the Wind- 
ward and Leeward Islands, given up to the English, occupied and defended by the 
emigrants." 

II. The brig Eliza was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 134 tons 
burden, built at Falmouth, Mass., in the year 1793, and was owned solely by Her- 
man Bake and John Testart, citizens of the United States, composing the firm of Bake, 
& Testart. 

The value of the vessel and freight was at least the amount of insurance effected 
thereon. 

III. The cargo of the brig Eliza at the time of her capture consisted of flour, oil, 
gin, brandy, salmon, candles, soap, tea, lard, hams, sausages, almonds, marble mor- 
tars, herring, claret, looking-glasses, playing cards, traveling cases, glassware, cheese, 
fruits, meats, perfumery, sweetmeats, and hair powder. 

John G. Wachsmuth, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of an invoice 
consisting of 270 baskets of fine oil and 64 cases of red wine, composing a part of the 
cargo. The value of this invoice, estimated from prices current, was $2,793. 

Lewis Clapier, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of an invoice com- 
posing part of said cargo, consisting of miscellaneous articles of merchandise, none 
of which were contraband, the value of which was $17,719.83, excluding charges 
and premiums of insurance. 

IV. The loss to the said John G. Wachsmuth consisted of the value of the cargo 
shipped by him, amounting to $2,793. 

No claim for loss is filed by Herman Bake and John Testart, the owners of this vessel, 
or Lewis Clapier, owner of part of the cargo. 

V. March 7, 1798, Bake & Testart effected in the office of the Insurance Company 
of North America insurance on the vessel in the sum of $5,000, paying therefor a 
premium of 28 per cent. 

Thereafter, July 3, 1798, the said insurance company paid to the said insured the 
sum of $4,900, being in full for a total loss, less the customary abatement of 2 per 
cent. 

On March 7, 1798, Bake & Testart effected in the office of the Insurance Company 
of North America insurance on the freight in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a 
premium of 28 per cent. 

Thereafter, July 3, 1798, the said insurance company paid to the said insured the 
sum of $1,960, being in full for a total loss, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. 

March 3, 1798, Lewis Clapier effected insurance on his portion of the cargo in the 
sum of $22,000, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Of this insurance $20,000 
was effected in the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. 
It does not appear where the remaining $2,000 was insured, nor have any claims 
been filed therefor. 

Thereafter, July 2, 1798, the said insurance company duly paid the said insured 
the sum of $18,906.64 in full for a total loss, which was an overpayment of $1,186.81, 
the value of the cargo being $17,719.83. 

The Insurance Company of North America was duly incorporated under the laws 
of the State of Pennsylvania and empowered to carry on the business of marine 
insurance. 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania was duly incorporated under 
the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and empowered to carry on the business of 
marine insurance. 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 18 



754 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Eliza, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United 
States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national 
claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to 
the following sums from the United States: 

Samuel Bell, administrator, etc., of John Godfrey Wachsmuth, two thou-' 
sand seven hundred and ninety-three dollars $2, 793. 00 

The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, 
six thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars 6, 860. 00 

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, seventeen thousand 
seven hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-three cents 17, 719. 83 

Amounting in all to twenty-seven thousand three hundred and 
seventy-two dollars and eighty-three cents .27, 372. 83 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER LITTLE FANNY. 

Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Little Fanny, Peter Fosdick, master.l 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

657. Elijah K. Hubbard, administrator of Jacob Sebor, v. The United States. 

865. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. 

The United States. 
917. Richard Irwin, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 
1256. T. B. Bleeker, jr., and Charles 0. Leary. receivers of the New York Insurance 

Company, v. The United States. 
1446. The Pennsylvania Company of Insurance for Lives, etc., administrator of 
Thomas M. Willing, v. The United States. 
William Brooke-Rawle, administrator of Jesse Wain, v. The United States. 
Samuel Bell, administrator of John G. Wachsmuth, v. The United States. 
George Blight, administrator of Peter Blight, v. The United States. 
Thomas F. Bayard, administrator of Thomas W. Francis, v. The United States. 
George Willing, administrator of George Willing, v. The United States. 
Robert W. Smith, -administrator of Robert Smith, v. The United States. 
Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, v. The United States. 
Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, v. The United States. 
Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator of James Crawford, v. The United 

States. 
Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, v. The United States. 
Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator of Abijah Dawes, v. The United States. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 755 

No.ol 
case. Claimant. 

1446. A. Louis Eakin, administrator of Chandler Price, v. The United States. 

1682. Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, v. The United States. 

2148. Joseph Ogden, surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United 

States. 

2701. George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba, v. The United States. 

4270. Samuel J. Randall, administrator of Matthew Randall, v. The United States. 

5189. Joseph Ogden, surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United 

States. 

5190. Joseph Ogden, surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United 

States. 
5419. Henry Ogden, administrator of James Seton, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Thomas Stokes, esqs.-, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom 
was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Little Fanny, whereof Peter Fosdick was then master, sailed on a 
commercial voyage on or about December 8, 1798, bound for Surinam, where she duly 
arrived, and sailed from thence early in the month of April, 1799, bound for Philadel- 
phia. While peacefully pursuing her said voyage to Philadelphia she was seized on 
the high seas by the French privateer Alliance and conducted to St. Johns, P. R. 
Thereafter, to wit, June 9, 1799, both vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize 
by decree of the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre in the island of 
Guadeloupe, and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors, whereby the same became 
a total loss to the owners thereof. , 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, to wit: 

"That the vessel carried a commission from the President of the United States. 

"That according to the role d'equipage it appears that Benjamin Lewis, supercargo 
of the vessel, is an Englishman, and that there does not exist any document which 
proves that he is a naturalized citizen of the United States as is stated in the r61e 
d'equipage, as there has not been found any paper proving since what time' he has 
become an American, and at what time he has transferred his residence to the United 
States. 

"That among the papers delivered by the captain at the time of his seizure there 
was no sea-letter, invoice, nor bill of lading, except a bill of lading relating to aprevious 
voyage." 

II. The Little Fanny was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 102ff tons 
burthen, built in the State of Virginia in the year 1795, and owned solely by Matthew 
Randall, a citizen of the United States, residing in Philadelphia. 

III. The cargo of the Little Fanny at the time of said seizure consisted of salt, beef, 
hams, corn, and similar articles, together with coffee and cotton, but the neutrality 
and ownership of the same is not established by competent evidence. 

IV. The losses to said Matthew Randall by reason of the seizure and condemnation 
of said vessel were as follows: 

Value of vessel $4, 080 

Freight earnings 1, 700 

Premium of insurance paid (excluding premium on insurance effected after 
capture) 400 

Amounting in all to 6, 180 

Deduct insurance received 3, 920 

Net loss 2, 260 

V. December 11, 1798, Matthew Randall effected, through the office of Wharton & 
Lewis, insurance on the vessel in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 20 



756 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set 
opposite his name, viz: 

James Yard $1, 000 

Simon Walker 500 

Ambrose Vasse 500 

Thereafter Wharton & Lewis, as agents, paid the insured $1,960, being in full for a 
total loss on the above policy, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. 

May 6, 1799, Matthew Randall effected insurance through the office of Wharton & 
Lewis on the vessel in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, 
said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite 
his name, viz: 

Pragers & Co $1,000 

Peter Blight 1, 000 

Thereafter Wharton & Lewis, as agents, paid the insured $1,960, being in full for 
a total loss on the above policy, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. 

There was also effected by Matthew Randall insurance on the cargo in the offices of 
Wharton & Lewis, of John Ferrers, insurance broker of New York, the Insurance Com- 
pany of North America, and the New York Insurance Company, but the neutrality of 
the cargo not having been shown no recovery can be had for insurance effected 
thereon. 

There was also effected by Matthew Randall insurance on the freight of said vessel in 
the office of John Ferrers, of New York, the same being underwritten by various per- 
sons, but no proof of the payment of said policy is shown. 

The firm of Pragers & Co. was composed of Mafk Prager, jr., and John Prager. Mark 
Prager, jr., was the surviving partner. 

Ambrose Vasse, Pragers & Co., and Peter Blight, insurers on the above policies, 
were citizens of the United States. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Little Fanny as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 
1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between 
the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that the seizure and condemnation of the 
cargo were legal and claimants are not entitled to recover therefor under the authority 
of the Betsey, Wyman (36 C. Cls. R., 256); that the seizure and condemnation of the 
vessel were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 
upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

Samuel J. Randall, administrator of Matthew Randall, two thousand two 
hundred and sixty dollars $2, 260. 00 

Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, four hundred and ninety 
dollars 490. 00 

Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, jr., for and on behalf of Pra- 
gers & Co. , nine hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 

Francis A. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, nine hundred and eighty 
dollars 980. 00 

Amounting in all to four thousand seven hundred and ten dollars 4, 710. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 757 

James Yard and Simon Walker, underwriters on the above-named policy, are not in 
court. 

The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER BENJA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Benja, Samuel O. Row, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

301. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 
2244. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, r. The United States. 
2999. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 
Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, surviving partner of Jeffrey 
& Russell, v. The United States. 
3462. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 
Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 
John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 25th day of February, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistant in 
the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. 

I. The schooner Benja, whereof Samuel O. Row was master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage on or about the 1st day of July, 1799, bound to Barbadoes. While peacefully 
pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 9th day of August, 
in the year 1799, by the French privateer Espoir, Captain Melse, and carried to the 
island of Guadaloupe, and on the 13th day of the said month of August, both vessel 
and cargo were condemned and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by the tri- 
bunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, whereby they became 
a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The ground of condemnation as set forth in the decree was as follows: 
"Considering from the papers analyzed and those examined it is certain that the 

captain of the said schooner had no role d'equipage, but a simple agreement not bearing 

the signature of any public officer." 

II. The Benja was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 46f 4 tons burthen, 
built in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1798, and was owned solely by Ezra 
Whitney, a citizen of the United States, residing in Boston, in the said State. 

III. The cargo of the Benja consisted of beans, candles, fish, flour, rice, and tobacco, 
and was owned by the said Ezra Whitney and Joseph Clark, likewise a citizen of the 
United States. 

IV. The losses to the owners by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Benja 
and cargo were as follows: 

Value of vessel $1, 840 

Value of cargo 2, 084 

Freight earnings 767 

Premiums of insurance paid 666 

Amounting in all to 5, 357 

Deduct insurance received 3, 700 

Net loss 1,657 



758 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

V. July 12, 1799, said Joseph Clark effected insurance in trie office of Peter C. Brooks 
in the sum of $1,300 on the cargo and outfits of the said schooner, paying therefor a 
premium of 18 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, citizens 
of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: 

William Smith $700 

Crowell Hatch 600 

November 27, 1799, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the amount of 
said policy, as and for a total loss, the same being a loss to each of said underwriters of 
the sum subscribed by him. 

December 16, 1801, William Smith in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid by 
Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all disadvantages arising from 
his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, 
and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the 
said Brooks. 

VI. July 27, 1799, said Ezra Whitney effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor 
in the sum of $2,400, whereof one-half was on the said vessel and one-half on the cargo, 
paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent by a policy of insurance underwritten by 
the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his 
name, viz: 

John C. Jones $500 

Jeffrey & Russell 500 

Tuthill Hubbart 500 

Daniel Sargent 500 

Nicholas Gilman 400 

December 31, 1799, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the 
amount of said policy, as and for a total loss, the same being a loss to each of said 
underwriters of the sum subscribed by him. 

The firm of Jeffrey & Russell was composed of Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell, 
the last named being the survivor of said firm. 

VII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the 
estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satis- 
faction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in 
fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of 
the schooner Benja, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under 
the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 
22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 
Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, seven hundred dollars. $700. 00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, six hundred dollars 600. 00 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 
John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, five hundred dollars. .". 500. 00 
Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, surviving partner of 

Jeffrey & Russell, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, five hundred dollars. 500. 00 
William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, four hurfared dollars.. 400. 00 

Three thousand seven hundred dollars 3, 700. 00 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 759 

No persons claiming to represent Ezra Whitney and Joseph Clark, owners of the 
vessel and cargo respectively, have appeared herein. 

By the Court. 
Filed March 4, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 11th day of December, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER HERO. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885. 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed\, 471. Vessel schooner Hero, Convers Lilly, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

1625. Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 
2981. Walter L. Hall, administrator of Samuel Davis, v. The United States. 

Ann W. Davis, administratrix of Jonathan Davis, v. The United States. 
3331. Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 

Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. 
3541. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. 

Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, v. The United States. 

Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. 

Henry B. Cabot, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, v. The United States. 

James G. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. 

H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing, v. The United States. 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- 
General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., 
with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Hero, whereof Convers Lilly was then master, sailed on a commer- 
cial voyage December 9, 1799, from Bath, bound to Demarara, where she duly 
arrived and sailed thence March 4, 1800, bound for Martinique. While peacefully 
pursuing her said voyage and in sight of Martinique on the 9th day of the said 
month of March she was seized by the French privateer Favorite, Captain Landro, 
and carried to Port Liberty, Guadaloupe. On arrival at Port Liberty the prize mas- 
ter plundered the vessel of her furniture and stores, and the owners of the privateer 
robbed the said Convers Lilly of $272 in cash out of his chest. While under inter- 
rogatories the said Convers Lilly requested that he be informed where he could find 
a notary public in order that he might make protest, whereupon he was informed 
by the justice of the peace who was conducting the examination that that was more 
than he would be allowed to do, that nothing was being done but what was sanc- 
tioned by the Government. The next morning the said Convers Lilly was more 
effectually deprived of doing anything even if permitted, as every farthing of money 
was taken from him. 

Thereafter, to wit, March 20, 1800, the said vessel and cargo were condemned as 
good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by decree of the tribunal 
of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the said island, whereby the same became a 
total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows: 

That the affidavit at the bottom of the sea letter of said vessel was not in good 
form. 

That the vessel had contravened her passport in that it does not appear that she 
went to Surinam, the port for which she sailed. 



760 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

That there was neither invoice nor bill of lading relative to goods which were a 
part of the cargo. . 

That the vessel had come from Demarara, a colony occupied by the English, and 
that she had a cargo of sugar, coffee, and provisions as shown by her manifest from 
the custom-house of said place. 

That the vessel had no role d'equipage. 

II. The Hero was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 130^4 tons burthen, 
built at Bath, Mass. (now Maine), in the year 1796, and owned solely by Samuel 
Davis and Jonathan Davis, citizens of the United States. 

III. The cargo of the Hero at the time of the seizure consisted of coffee, sugar, 
firewood, pork, beef, and osnaburgs, but the neutrality and ownership of the same 
is not shown by competent evidence. 

IV. The losses to the said Samuel Davis and Jonathan Davis by reason of the 
seizure and condemnation of the Hero, as aforesaid, were as follows: 

Value of the vessel. 15,200.00 

Freight earnings 2, 167. 00 

Premium of insurance paid on vessel 350. 00 



Amounting in all to „ 7,717.00 

Deduct insurance received 2, 000. 00 



Net loss 5,717.00 



Loss of Samuel Davis, one-half 2, 858. 50 

Loss of Jonathan Davis, one-half 2, 858. 50 

V. December 21, 1799, Samuel and Jonathan Davis effected insurance in the office 
of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $2,000 on the vessel, paying therefor a premium of 17£ 
per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were 
citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name: 

Nicholas Gilman $250 ( Daniel Sargent $125 

Jacob Sheafe 125 | Daniel D. Rogers 125 

John and Thomas Stevens 150 Cornelius Durant 250 

Leech & Hilton 75 Thomas dishing 100 

John C. Jones 150 Israel Thorndike 125 

Thomas Amory 250 Tuthill Hubbart 150 

James Scott 125 | 

Thereafter Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,000, 
being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, the same being a total loss to each 
of said underwriters of the amount so stated to have been underwritten by them, 
respectively. 

There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the cargo, but the 
neutrality and ownership of said cargo not being shown no recovery can be had for the 
insurance effected thereon. 

VI. The defendants have filed a counterclaim, alleging that the original claimant, 
Thomas Cushing, was indebted to the United States in the sum of $7,301.94 upon cer- 
tain unpaid custom-house bonds. It does not appear what amount, if any, of such 
indebtedness was paid. This indebtedness being greater than the amount of his loss 
herein, his administrator is entitled to no recovery. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Hero, as set forth in the 
preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of the 
vessel were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 761 

upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the 
United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 
1800, that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United 
States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national 
claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the 
following sums from the United States: 

Walter L. Hall, administrator of Samuel Davis, two thousand eight hundred 

and fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents $2, 858. 50 

Ann W. Davis, administratrix of Jonathan Davis, two thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents 2, 858. 50 

William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, two hundred and fifty 

dollars 250. 00 

Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheaf e, one hundred and 

twenty-five dollars 125. 00 

Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, for and on behalf of the 

firm of John & Thomas Stevens, one hundred and fifty dollars 150. 00 

Thomas H. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one hundred and fifty 

dollars 150. 00 

William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, two hundred and 

fifty dollars : 250. 00 

George G. King, administrator of James Scott, one hundred and twenty-five 

dollars •. 125. 00 

Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, one hundred and 

twenty-five dollars 125. 00 

Henry B. Cabot, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, one hundred and 

twenty-five dollars 125. 00 

James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, two hundred and fifty 

dollars 250. 00 

Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, one hundred and 

twenty-five dollars 125. 00 

A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, one hundred and 

fifty dollars 150. 00 



Amounting in all to seven thousand five hundred and forty-two 

dollars 7, 542. 00 

No person claiming to represent Leech & Hilton has appeared herein. 
By reason of the counterclaim against Thomas Cushing, hereinbefore mentioned, no 
award is made to his estate. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 

Test this 7th day of January, 1908. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER FORTUNE. 

[Court of Claims of the United States. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stats. L., 283, 
vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Schooner Fortune, William Hubbard, master.] 

No. of 

case. Claimants. 

38. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, v. The United States. 
2333. Mary W. Moody, administratrix of Daniel Wise, v. The United States. 
2573. John C. Lord, administrator of Tobias Lord, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were heard before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of November, 
1907. 

The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, Edwin B. Smith, Wm. 
T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by 
the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. 
Trainer, and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General 
Josiah C. Van Orsdel. 



762 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

The court upon the evidence, after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The schooner Fortune, William Hubbard, master, sailed upon a commercial 
voyage from Kennebunk, in that part of Massachusetts since erected into the State 
of Maine, for a port in the West India Islands in the year 1799, prior to July 16, 1799. 

Sometime prior to the 16th of July, 1799, said vessel was captured by the French 
privateer La Legere, Captain Pairandeau, carried into the port De la Liberte, and 
was by the tribunal of commerce and prizes established and sitting at Basseterre, 
Guadaloupe, condemned with her cargo. 

The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were that it appeared 
from a paper and from an examination that said schooner had no invoice or bill of 
lading, as the master had admitted in his interrogatory, so that it was impossible to 
know the true owner of said cargo, which is not sufficiently proven to be a neutral 
one, and that the captain had no list of the crew. 

II. The Fortune was a registered vessel of the United States of 93 tons burden, but 
the ownership thereof is not shown save to the amount of $600 insurance effected 
thereon by Daniel Wise, a citizen of the United States. 

III. There was a cargo on board the Fortune at the time of capture, but the quan- 
tity, quality, and ownership thereof is not shown. 

IV. The losses to the owners of the Fortune and her cargo, so far as appears by the 
evidence, are as follows: 

Value of vessel, to amount insured $600. 00 

Premium of insurance paid 108. 00 

Amounting in all to 708. 00 

Deduct insurance received 600. 00 

Net loss 108. 00 

V. On May 30, 1799, Daniel Wise obtained from William Gray insurance upon the 
vessel in the sum of $600 at a premium of 18 per cent. On the 2d of September, 1799, 
said William Gray paid to said Daniel Wise the sum of $600 in full for a total loss upon 
said policy. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same peseons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Fortune, as 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that the seizure and condemnation of said 
vessel was illegal, but that the ownership of said vessel is not established by sufficient 
evidence, except in Daniel Wise to the amount of insurance paid thereon; that the 
condemnation of the cargo of said vessel was not illegal, no proof of the neutrality of 
said cargo having been produced before the prize court, and that the claimants are 
entitled to the following sums from the United States: 

Mary W. Moody, administratrix of Daniel Wise, one hundred and eight 

dollars .' $108. 00 

Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, six hundred dollars..., 600. 00 

Amounting in all to seven hundred and eight dollars 708. 00 

John C. Lord, administrator of Tobias Lord, has proved no valid claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

. A true copy. 
Test this 9th day of January, A. D. 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 763 

SLOOP ANNA CORBIN. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel sloop Anna Corbin, master, Thomas Justice.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2459. John J. Wise, administrator of John Cropper, v. The United States. 
5131. Henry G. White, administrator of Thomas Cropper, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907 . 
The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and 
Charles W. Clagett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, 
through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was 
Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The sloop Anna Corbin, whereof Thomas Justice was then master, sailed on a 
commercial voyage from Folly Landing, State of Virginia, on the 11th day of February, 
1798, bound for the island of Antigua, with a cargo of 2,500 bushels of corn, where she 
duly arrived and disposed of said cargo and sailed thence for St. Bartholomew, and 
thence for Folly Landing, in the State of Virginia. 

While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas March 24, 
1798, by the French privateer La Poule, and both vessel and cargo condemned as good 
prize April 19, 1798, by decree of the tribunal of prizes of Guadaloupe, whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The ground of condemnation as stated 
in the decree was that the vessel had sailed on a false route. 

II. The Anna Corbin was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 30 tons 
burthen, built in Virginia in the year 1794, and owned solely by John Cropper in the 
proportion of three-fourths and Thomas Cropper in the proportion of one-fourth. 

III. The outward cargo of corn sold at Antigua was owned by John Cropper and 
Thomas Cropper, and an unknown quantity of rumTwas taken on board there. At St. 
Bartholomew the vessel took on board 9 hogsheads, 7 tierces, and 9 barrels of sugar, or 
14,206 pounds, of the value of |2,130.90, and 3 bags of coffee, weighing 299 pounds, 
of the value of $44.85, being the sole property of said John Cropper. 

IV. The loss to John Cropper by reason of said seizure was as follows, viz: 

Three-fourths value of vessel. $750. 00 

Three-fourths freight earnings 375. 00 

Value of cargo as far as proved 2, 175. 75 

Amounting in all to 3, 300. 75 

The losses to Thomas Cropper by reason of said seizure were as follows, viz: 

One-fourth value of vessel $250. 00 

One-fourth freight earnings 125. 00 

Amounting in all to 375. 00 

Thomas Custis is not in court. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Anna Corbin, aa 
set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of 
February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 



764 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 
France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following 
sums from the United States: 

John J. Wise, administrator of John Cropper, three thousand three hundred 
dollars and seventy-five cents $3, 300. 75 

Henry G. White, administrator of Thomas Cropper, three hundred and 
seventy-five dollars 375. 00 

Amounting in all to three thousand six hundred and seventy-five 
dollars and seventy-five cents 3, 675. 75 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1907. 

A true copy. 
i Test this 17th day of January, 1908. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG ELIZA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Brig Eliza, Benjamin 

English, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

2841. George P. Marvin, administrator of Ebenezer Peck and Stephen Ailing, v. 

The United States. 
2841. Elihu L. Mix, administrator of Thomas Atwater, v. The United States. 
2841. John C. Hollister, administrator of Elias Shipman, Austin Denison, and 

Robert Townsend, v. The United States. 
2935. The New Haven Insurance Company v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 19th day of November, 1906. 

The claimants were represented by John W. Butterfield, esq., and the United 
States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department 
of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah 
A. Van Orsdel. 

FINDINGS OP PACT. ^ 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Eliza, Benjamin English, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on 
June 26, 1798, from New Haven, Conn., bound for St. Nicholas Mole. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage on July 24, 1798, she was seized on the high seas by the 
French privateer La Confiance, Captain Chollet, and taken to Cape Francois, where 
she with her cargo was condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce at that 
place, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 

The ground of condemnation as set forth in the decree was as follows: 
That she was destined for the Mole St. Nicholas, a rebel port, handed over to the 
English. 

II. The Eliza was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 88 tons burthen; 
was built at Guildford in the year 1791 and was owned, among others, by Ebenezer 
Peck, Stephen Ailing, Thomas Atwater, and Shipman & Denison, citizens of the 
United States. 

III. The cargo of the Eliza at the time of capture consisted of cattle, sheep, grain, 
and other merchandise, and was owned by the owners of the vessel. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 765 

IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza were as 
follows: 

The value of the vessel $3, 000. 00 

Freight earnings for the voyage 1, 456. 00 

Value of the cargo 2, 235. 40 

Premiums of insurance paid 954. 50 

Total 7, 645. 90 

V. The New Haven Insurance Company, a body corporate then and still' existing 
under the laws of the State of Connecticut, on the 7th July, 1798, insured the owners 
of the vessel and cargo to the amount of $5,000. 

Thereafter said insurance company paid the assured the sum of $4,900 as and for a 
total loss by reason of the premises. 

VI. Ebenezer Peck was owner of one-third of the vessel and a portion of the cargo. 
The losses sustained by him were as follows : 

One-third value of vessel $1, 000. 00 

One-third freight earnings 485. 33 

Value of his share of cargo 743. 83 

Premium of insurance paid by him 300. 34 

Total 2, 529. 50 

Less insurance received 1, 576. 68 

Leaving net loss to him 952. 82 

VII. Stephen Ailing was the owner of one-sixth of the vessel and a portion of the 
cargo. His losses were as follows: 

One-sixth value of vessel $500. 00 

One-sixth freight earnings 242. 66 

Value of his portion of cargo 371. 92 

Premium of insurance paid byhim 150. 17 

Total 1,264.75 

Less insurance received 788. 33 

Leaving net loss to him 476. 42 

VIII. Thomas Atwater was the owner of one-sixth of the vessel and cargo. His 
losses were as follows: I 

One-sixth value ot vessel $500. 00 

One-sixth freight earnings 242. 66 

Value his portion of cargo 371. 92 

Premium of insurance paid 150. 17 

Total 1, 264. 75 

Less insurance received 788. 33 

Leaving net loss to him 476. 48 

IX. The firm of Shipman & Denison was the owner of one-sixth of the vessel and 
cargo. Their losses were as follows: 

One-sixth value of vessel $500. 00 

One-sixth freight earnings. 242. 66 

Value their portion of cargo 371. 92 

Premium of insurance paid 150. 17 

Total 1, 264. 75 

Less insurance received 788. 33 

Leaving net loss to them 476. 42 

The share in the above balance of the partner Elias Shipman was $238.21. 
The share of the partner Austin Denison was $238.21. 

X. The firm of Shipman & Denison, above referred to, consisted of Elias Shipman 
and Austin Denison. The claimant John C. Hollister is the administrator of the 
several estates of the two partners. It does not appear which was the surviving 
party. 



766 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

XI. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the 
parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the 
court that the persons whom they represent are the same persons who suffered loss 
by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza as set forth in the preceding 
findings. 

XII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States 
and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not 
claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under 
the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 
22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the fol- 
lowing sums from the United States: 

George P. Marvin, administrator of Ebenezer Peck, nine hundred and 

fifty-two dollars and eighty-two cents $952. 82 

George P. Marvin, administrator of Stephen Ailing, four hundred and 
seventy-six dollars and forty-two cents 476. 42 

Elihu L. Mix, administrator of Thomas Atwater, four hundred and seventy- 
six dollars and forty-two cents 476. 42 

John C. Hollister, administrator of Elias Shipman, two hundred and thirty- 
eight dollars and twenty-one cents 238. 21 

John C. Hollister. administrator of Austin Denison, two hundred and thirty- 
eight dollars and twenty-one cents 238. 21 

The New Haven Insurance Company, four thousand nine hundred dollars. . 4, 900. 00 

Amounting in all to seven thousand two hundred and eighty-two 

dollars and eight cents 7, 282. 08 

The defendants have produced in evidence a custom-house bond bearing date 
December 18, 1820, to secure the payment of duties on imports given to the United 
States by Elias Shipman. The court finds that a sum of $938.58 became due on said 
bond, and no evidence has been produced to establish the payment thereof. 

By the Court. 

Filed December 3, 1906. 

A true copy. 

Test this 19th day of December, 1906. . 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER JENNY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Jenny, George .Walker, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

890. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 

1630. Alice S. Wheeler, administratrix of Abiel Winship, v. The United States. 

2038. George G. King, administrator of Crowed Hatch, v. The United States. 

4204. William I. Munroe, administrator of John Brazer, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, 
esqs., and the United States, defendant, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant 
in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq. , with, whom was Assistant Attorney- 
General J. A. VanOrsdel. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN -CLAIMS. 767 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : 

I. The schooner Jenny, George Walker, master, sailed on a commercial voyage 
November 21, 1796, from Boston bound for Jamaica. 

While peacefully pursuing said voyage, she was seized on the high seas in December, 
1796, by the French privateer schooner La Picarde, Captain Calinichi. and sent into 
Gonaives, under a prize master. The captain of the Jenny was taken to Gonaives on 
the privateer; his papers were taken from him, and he was kept under guard on the 
privateer. While still in custody, he was examined by the justice of the peace of 
Gonaives and compelled to sign his answers to the interrogatories, although the inter- 
preting had been very imperfect and he could not know what his answers had been 
made to contain. On January 1, 1797, the vessel and cargo were condemned by the 
commission of the executive directory at the Cape as good prize for the benefit of the 
captors, and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. 

The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows: That the 
cargo was of English ownership; that the vessel was not provided with passport and 
invoices. 

So far as the above conclusions were ground for legal condemnation they were incon- 
sistent with the facts, which facts the master was not given an opportunity to present 
to the tribunal that condemned the vessel and cargo. 

II. The Jenny was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 63f A tons burthen, 
built in Massachusetts in the year 1784, and owned solely by Abiel Winship and 
Charles Winship, citizens of the United States, in the proportions, respectively, of 
three-quarters and one-quarter. 

III. The cargo of the Jenny at date of said seizure consisted of beef, provisions, 
flour, hoops, similar merchandise, and specie, and was owned by said Abiel Winship 
and Charles Winship in the same proportions as they owned the vessel and by other 
persons Whose names do not appear. 

The specie consisted of 1,500 Spanish milled dollars, of which 1,200 were the property 
of said Abiel Winship and Charles Winship, owned by them in the same proportions as 
they owned the vessel. 

IV. The losses to said Abiel Winship by reason of the seizure and condemnation of 
the Jenny were as follows : 

Three-fourths value of the vessel $1, 420. 00 

Three-fourths freight earnings 787. 50 

Value of his proportion of cargo, including specie 1, 462. 56 

Amounting in all to 3, 670. 06 

February 2, 1797, Charles Winship, owner of one-fourth of vessel and one-fourth of 
that portion of the cargo shipped by him and Abiel Winship, procured through the 
office of Peter C. Brooks insurance on one-quarter part of the vessel and merchandise 
in the sum of $1,000, paying for such insurance a premium of 15 per cent. 

The policy was underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, 
each in the sum set opposite his name : 



Caleb Hopkins 

Crowell Hatch 500 

Thereafter Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the insured §1,000 in full for a total 
loss by reason of the premises. 

The value of the property at risk exceeded the sum for which insured. 

December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consideration 
of $3,000 paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said. Brooks of any and all 
liabilities and disadvantages arising from the said intestate's underwriting in the office 
of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his intestate's right, title, and interest in 
and to all insurance done by his said intestate as an underwriter in the office of said 
Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that 
the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 
suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Jenny, as set 
forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- 
visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22a of 



768 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the 
treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacityjare the owners of said claims, which 
have never been assigned except as aforesaid. \ 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that 
said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by 
treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 
against *the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums 
from the United States: 

Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, five hundred dollars $500.00 

George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, five hundred dollars 500. 00 

Alice S. Wheeler, administratrix of Abiel Winship, three thousand six hun- 
dred and seventy dollars and six cents 3, 670. 06 



Amounting in all to four thousand six hundred and seventy dollars 
and six cents 4, 670. 06 

Charles Winship, part owner of the vessel and cargo, is not in court. 
Petition No. 4204, William I. Monroe, administrator of John Brazer, is dismissed, 
no evidence having been produced to show that he suffered loss on this vessel. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy: 

Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

{Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SCHOONER LIBERTY. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 

to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Liberty, Asa Williams, master.] 
No. of 
case. Claimant. 

58. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of the estate of William Gray, jr., de- 
ceased, v. The United States. 

2133. David Greene Haskins, jr., administrator of the estate of David Greene, de-' 
ceased, v. The United States. 

2208. Brooks Adams, administrator of the estate of Peter Chardon Brooks, deceased, 
v. The United States. 

3334. George G. King, administrator of the estate of Crowell Hatch, deceased, v. The 
United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, and 
Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- 
General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., 
with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows" 

I. The schooner Liberty, Asa Williams, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from 
Port au Prince to New England in December, 1796. While peacefully pursuing said 
voyage the Liberty was captured on the high seas on the 12th day of December, 1796 , 
by the French barge Le Poisson Vollant, Captain Duluc. Said vessel was condemned 
in the year 1797 by the commission of the executive directory sitting at Cape Francois, 
whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. 

The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 

1. That the official papers of said schooner established conclusively that the said 
schooner departed from two ports of the colony of San Domingo in rebellion against 
the laws of the French Republic and under the protection of the British Government. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 769 

2. That Mole, St. Nicholas and Port au Prince, from which the said schooner de- 
parted, are of those ports declared in a state of permanent blockade by the decree of 
the commission. 

II. The Liberty was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 115 tons and 
64 feet burthen; was built at Penobscot, in the State of Massachusetts (now Maine), 
in the year 1794, and was owned by David Greene, of Boston, a citizen of the United 
States. 

III. At the time of capture of the Liberty she was returning from Port au Prince to 
New England in ballast. 

IV. The losses to David Greene by reason of the capture and condemnation of the 
Liberty were as follows: 

Value of the vessel •...,. $4, 600 

Premium of insurance paid .....' 360 



Amounting in all to 4, 960 

Deduct insurance received 3, 000 



Net loss 1, 960 

V. On the 26th day of October, 1796, David Greene effected, through the office of 
Peter C. Brooks, insurance in the sum of $5,000 on the vessel, freight, and cargo, pay- 
ing therefor a premium of 12 per cent. 

Of this insurance, $3,000 was specified to be on the vessel, and by the terms of the 
policy the first underwritten thereon to the extent of said $3,000 were to be held 
liable for the loss on the vessel, there being no loss on freight or cargo. The under- 
writers so held to be liable, and the amounts underwritten by them, were as fol- 
lows, viz: 

Crowell Hatch $500 I Caleb Hopkins $500 

Tuthill Hubbart 500 | Stephen Gorham 500 

William Smith 500 John Brazer 500 

All of the said underwriters were citizens of the United States. 

On the 23d day of August, 1797, Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said David 
Greene the sum of $3,000 as and for a total loss on the vessel, and no payment was 
made by the underwriters on the freight and cargo. 

VI. On April 4, 1804, the administrators of said Tuthill Hubbart, for and in con- 
sideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said 
Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of 
said Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, 
and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart as an underwriter in the 
office of said Brooks. 

On December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50 paid to him by 
Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of all and any liabilities and disadvantages aris- 
ing from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks 
all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter 
in the office of said Brooks. 

On December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consid- 
eration of $3,000 paid to him by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks 
of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of Caleb 
Hopkins in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his intestate's 
right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by said intestate as an under- 
writer in the office of said Brooks. 

On November 21, 1801, Stephen Gorham, in consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid 
by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of said Brooks of any and all liabilities and 
disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to 
the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him 
as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

• On September 4, 1804, John Brazer, for and in consideration of $5,708 paid by 
Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption of said Brooks of any liabilities and disad- 
vantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the 
said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an 
underwriter in the office of said Brooks. 

The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties 
for whom they appear,- and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court 
that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons 
who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Liberty 
as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claims are not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 49 



770 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or In parfunder the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d 
of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of 
the treaty betweenfthe United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said, claims, 
which have never been assigned except as aforesaid.!* 

CONCLUSIONS OP}LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the 
French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- 
ing sums from the United States:] ""$ 

Brooks Adams, administrator of the estate : of Peter Chardon Brooks, 
deceased, two thousand five hundred dollars $2, 500. 00 

George G. King, administrator of the estate of Crowell Hatch, deceased, 
five hundred dollars 500.00 

David Greene Haskins, administrator of the estate of David Greene, de- 
ceased, one thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars 1, 960. 00 

Amounting in all to four thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars. . 4, 960. 00 

The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. 

There being no cargo on board at the time of capture, there is no allowance made 
for freight earnings herein. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 

A true copy. , 

Test this llthMay of December, 1907. 

[seal.] ■ John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

BRIG SALLY. 

[Court of Claims of the United States. French spoliations, No. 1874. (Decided January 7, 1907.) Brig 
Sally, John V. Villett, master. Henry Audley Clarke, administrator de bonis non on the estate of 
Peleg Clark, v. The United States.] 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 15th day of January, 1906. 
The claimants were represented by C. G. Lee, Frank W. Hackett, and Charles W. 
Faulkner, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through 
his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was 
Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

p CONCLUSIONS OP PACT- 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering 
the same, with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Sally, John V. Villett, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or 
about the 7th day of June, 1796, from Newport, R. I., bound for Africa, where she 
arrived on the Gold Coast in the month of August following. The master of the 
Sally purchased a cargo of slaves and set sail for Savannah, Ga., intending to touch 
on the way at the Danish island of St. Thomas, probably for supplies. While peace- 
fully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high seas on or about the 6th day 
of March, 1797, by the French privateer Avenger of the French, Captain Laurent, and 
carried into Guadeloupe, where said vessel and her cargo were condemned as good 
prize by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basse-Terre, in said island, whereby the 
same became a total loss to the owners. ' 

The grounds of condemnation were "that said vessel coming from the coast of 
Africa with a cargo of blacks was taken within 2 leagues to windward of Antigua." 
The prize tribunal then declared that the brig Sally and everything that belonged to 
her was a good prize "in pursuance to a resolution of the agents of the executive 
directory bearing date of the 27th of the present month." The decree provided 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 771 

"that all the blacks of whom consisted the cargo shall be delivered to Government, 
without any exception, to be employed in cultivating the national plantations." 

The competent evidence in the case establishes that the brig Sally, Villett, master, 
was steering for the island of St. Thomas, pursuant to orders, without the intention 
of selling or disposing of the slaves in said island, but that the ultimate destination 
of the vessel was Savannah, Ga., and that the purpose of the master was to deliver 
said cargo at the port of Savannah, in the State of Georgia. 

II. The Sally was a duly registered vessel of the United IS tates of 124 tons burden; 
was built at Plymouth, Mass., in the year 1784, and was owned by Peleg Clark, a 
citizen of the United States and a resident of Newport, in the State of Rhode Island. 

III. The cargo of the Sally at the time of capture consisted of 167 slaves, but no 
claim has been filed on behalf of any of the owners of same. One hundred and forty 
of the slaves belonged to Peleg Clark (owner of the vessel), of Newport, R. I., and 21 
were the proceeds of the master's adventure and 6 belonged to the crew. 

IV. Before the clearance of the Sally a statutory bond for the lawfulness of the 
voyage was given, which bond subsequently was, in the year 1845, cancelled at the 
Treasury under the regulations in such cases made and provided. 

V. The loss by reason of the capture of the Sally anS. her cargo, so far as claims have 
been filed in this court, was as follows: 

The value of the vessel $4, 300 

The value of the freight earnings 2, 300 

VI. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the estate of 
Peleg Clark, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that said Clark 
is the same person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of 
the Sally, as set forth in the preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the 
Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and was not a claim grow- 
ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provision's of 
the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 
1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty be- 
tween the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has 
never been assigned. 

CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and that the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French 
Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and 
the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims 
were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty, 
in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against 
the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the 
United States: , 

Henry Audley Clark, administrator de bonis non of Peleg Clark, sixty-six hundred 
dollars ($6,600). 

OPINION. 

Howry, J., delivered the opinion of the court: 

The findings show that the Sally, Villett, master, sailed from Newport, R. I., bound 
for Africa, where a cargo of slaves was purchased. While on the return voyage with 
the slaves to the neutral island of St. Thomas and from there to Georgia (pursuant to 
orders received from the owners of the vessel before sailing from this country) the brig 
was captured by a French privateer and taken to Guadaloupe, where the brig and 
everything belonging to her was condemned as good prize. The reasons alleged for 
condemnation were that the brig was coming from the coast of Africa with a cargo of 
blacks and was taken within two leagues to windward of Antigua. The prize tribunal 
decreed condemnation in pursuance of a resolution of the agents of the executive 
directory. The questions in this case are whether the United States had a valid 
diplomatic claim against France, and did this Government assume to pay the claim 
.under the act of January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. L., 283)? 

At the time of the capture the slave trade was lawful, not only in this country, but 
by the law of nations, according to the Supreme Court (10 Wheat., 66). That is, when 
the ship sailed it was lawful to bring slaves to our own shores, but not lawful by our 
domestic statutes to transport inhabitants of a foreign country to another foreign coun- 
try for the purpose of selling or disposing of them as slaves. It was not until 1808 that 
the general prohibition against domestic importat on became operative. The State of 
Georgia was eight years in advance of the United States in that respect, for within a 
very short time after this adventure Georgia adopted a constitution which prohibite^ 



772 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the future importation of slaves from Africa or ary foreign place after October 1, 1798. 
(Sec. 11, Art. IV, Cons, of Ga., May 30, 1798. Poore's Compilation of Constitutions.) 
Colonial Rhode Island was sixteen years in advance of Georgia with respect to the 
gradual abolition of slavery (10 R. I. Col. Rec, 7). 

The grounds assigned by the decree of the prize tribunal which condemned the ves- 
sel are clear enough in language. But what was meant by the resolution of the agents 
of the French Directory, unless it be that no neutral coming from the coast of Africa 
with a cargo of blacks had a right to be within 2 leagues to windward of Antigua, we 
do not know. This resolution could not make unlawful the act of a neutral engaged 
in commerce lawfully authorized by the country from whence the neutral sailed. 
The ship was therefore unlawfully seized and condemned, and a valid diplomatic 
claim against the seizing government arose in behalf of the citizen of the country to 
which the vessel belonged, unless treaty rights could not be claimed for the vessel, 
this capture being before the abrogation of the treaty between France and the United 
States. 

But an act passed by the colonial assembly of Rhode Island provided that no citizen 
or resident therein should receive on his vessel with intent to cause to .be imported 
or transported from their native country any inhabitants in that part of the world 
called Africa as slaves without their voluntary consent (10 R. I. Col. Rec, 262). The 
act was passed in 1874. But Rhode Island, by adopting the Constitution of the United 
States in 1792, surrendered the privilege of regulating foreign commerce. Congress 
alone were invested with that power (Art. I, sec. 6, Cons. U. S.). 

The vital question arises under an act (1 Stat. L., 347) approved March 22, 1794, 
by which Congress prohibited the importation of the inhabitants of any foreign king- 
dom, place, or country to another port in a foreign country for the purpose of selling 
or disposing of such inhabitants as slaves. 

What, then, was the purpose of the parties? The intent is the essence of the con- 
troversy, and by this intent the act must be governed in the absence of any effort to sell 
or dispose of the cargo. Was it the purpose of the owners to send or the intent of the 
agents of the owners to go to a foreign country to procure and transport any of the 
inhabitants of that country to another foreign country to sell or dispose of such a cargo 
as slaves, or was it the design to bring this cargo to the domestic port of Savannah. Ga.? 

Rejecting as inadmissible the testimony offered by claimants to show the special 
reason for attempting to put into St. Thomas, we pause long enough in this connection 
to say that if there is any proposition better established than another in connection 
with spoliation cases under the act of our jurisdiction it is that which excludes from 
consideration memorials, affidavits, and ex parte statements made by the shipowners 
of those days, and others in their behalf, long after the occurrence to which they are 
supposed to relate. (The ship Parlcman, 35 C. Cls., 406; The Hiram, Whitney, 41, ibid. 
12.) 

The competent evidence offered does establish, however, that the return voyage of 
this ship was to St. Thomas and from thence to Georgia, pursuant to orders. Out of this 
alone we are unable to make the act of the parties an unlawful act. The home port was 
Savannah, Ga. That was the place of ultimate destination. It was lawful to make it 
so by the owners, and it was unlawful to order a stop on the way^in the port of any for- 
eign country for the purpose of doing that which might lawfully be done at home. The 
lawful character of the act under such orders must be presumed. The unlawful char- 
acter can not be inferred, but must be proved. The statute, being highly penal in its 
terms, must be strictly construed. The courts can not search for an intention not 
suggested by the language of the orders and the conduct of the master under them. 

It is not reasonable to believe that the purpose existed on the part of this shipowner 
when the sailing orders were given, or on the part of the shipmaster when he attempted 
to execute them, to carry these persons from the gold coast to foreign territory and there 
endeavor to sell them as slaves, because it appears that the market was wanting at the 
time in this foreign country. France in following the doctrines of her Revolution 
had abolished colonial slavery in 1793, and though Xapoleon attempted to undo the 
work of the convention, slavery for a time did not exist by law. From 1794 until the 
consulate preceding the First Empire the institution did not lawfully obtain in the 
possessions of the French. Its sickly existence in the West Indies about the time of 
this seizure forbids he belief that attempts to land and sell savage blacks would have 
met with success. Though slavery did exist in a small way in St. Thomas until a later 
period, the island itself was neutral at the time of the seizure of this vessel. If any- - 
body understood the conditions and hazards surrounding such an attempt to sell slaves 
there, this shipmaster and the owners undoubtedly did. 

The recitals of the decree confirm the want of market opportunity in the foreign port. 
When the authorities took possession of the cargo the captives were not sold, but put to 
work on the national plantations. 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 773 

There is a final view to be noted which strengthens the conclusion that the vessel 
was not violating the prohibitive act under consideration. The statutory bond given 
before the clearance of the vessel for the lawfulness of the voyage was subsequently 
canceled at the Treasury. The officials charged with that duty must have been sat- 
isfied that the obligation of the bond had not been infringed. 

Reluctant as the court is to deal with this ancient demand, not merely because of 
the nature of the ship's employment, but because of the doubts suggested as to the 
intent of the master in making for St. Thomas, there is nothing to do but to give 
effect to the will of Congress. For the discharge of its duty the court does not need 
to be reminded of the words of Chief Justice Marshall, who, speaking for the Supreme 
Court in a case where the right of a foreign vessel engaged in the slave trade was 
asserted as against an American cruiser, said that the court must not yield to feelings, 
but must obey the mandate of the law. (The Antelope, 10 Wheat., 114.) Still less 
does the court need for the performance of its duty the argument of counsel that the 
question of the moral nature of the business of shipping slaves at the time of this 
capture has no proper place in the determination of the rights of the parties. True, 
this argument emphasizes the respectability of the traffic at the time (Rhode Island 
alone having 150 vessels engaged in it in 1770); that- the trade in human species was 
the first wheel of commerce in Newport; that the town was built up and flrourished 
by that trade (Spears's American Slave Trade, Scribner, 1900, p. 19), and that if 
prospective purchasers could be found in Georgia for savage labor Rhode Island ship- 
owners were willing to violate public sentiment there and go with rum and tobacco 
to barter with some savage king for his subjects, to be transported where such labor 
could be profitably employed. The doubt has arisen as to the meaning of the sailing 
orders and the purpose of the master in making for the foreign port. There is a case 
where the original design and purpose of the voyage have been veiled by the pre- 
tense of the owner as well as the shipmaster (the Amedie, 1 Acton, 240), and likewise 
a case where, on account of the alleged tumultuous disposition of the slaves, the 
master altered his course to a more convenient port (the Nancy, 2 Acton, 4), and 
likewise a case where the vessel had touched the settlements of European nations 
and in attempting to make for a foreign port was captured (the Ann, 2 Acton, 6). 
But these cases were examined in the Antelope, ante, and it was held that one nation 
would not execute the penal laws of another. It will be found upon further exam- 
ination that these cases have no application beyond the real purpose which took the 
vessels to foreign ports, and we must turn at last to the objects in view when this 
ship was ordered to a foreign country to bring slaves back to our own. ' 

There is no claim for the cargo, but the waiver does not include freight earnings. 
These are allowable on merchandise attempted to be brought from Africa to Savannah, 
Ga. Passenger rates can not be claimed for 1 the cargo of slaves, but rates strictly for 
merchandise can be claimed as of the time. Freight earnings on this theory are as 
much a lawful claim under the act of our jurisdiction as the value of the vessel. 

The minority of the court is of opinion that as claimants have waived compensation 
for the cargo the waiver extends to freight earnings, as the vessel and cargo were owned 
by the same parties. 

The findings of the court will be reported to Congress, together with a copy of this 
opinion. 

Barney, J., dissents. 

By the Court. 

Filed January 7, 1907. 

A true copy, 

Test this 31st clay of January, 1907. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

SNOW ELIZA. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliation. Act of Ja.nuary 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., p. 283. Vessel, snow or 
brigantine Eliza, Capt. Ephraim Perkins.] 

No. of 

claims. Claimant. 

4054. Theodore B. Moody, administrator of Joseph Moody, deceased. 

Walter L. Dane, administrator of Ephraim Perkins, deceased. 
2328. Stephen F. Fairfield, administrator of William Taylor, deceased. 
32. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, deceased. 



774 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d of May, 1901. The 
claimants were represented by George A. King, Edwin B. Smith, and Charles W. 
Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through 
his assistants in the Department of Justice, Charles W. Russell and John W., Trainor, 
esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. 

CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: 

I. The snow or brigantine Eliza, Ephraim Perkins, master, sailed on a commercial 
voyage from Kennebunk, Me., on the 19th day of May, 1799, bound for the island of 
Barbados, with a cargo consisting of lumber. 

While peacefully pursuing her said voyage she was captured on the high seas by 
the French armed man-of-war La Legere, Captain Parandeau, and taken into Guada- 
loupe, where, on her arrival the 2d day of July, her master was imprisoned, after 
which, on July 19, he was put on board a Swedish sloop to go to the island of St. Bar- 
tholomew, but during the passage was seized by the English privateer Lydia and 
brought to the island of St. Christopher on July 23. 

On July 19, 1799, the Eliza and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of com- 
merce and prizes at the island of Guadaloupe, on the ground that she had no r6le 
d'6quipage or other proper papers, and was not satisfactorily proved to be a neutral 
vessel, whereby said vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners. 

II. The Eliza was an American vessel of 135 tons burden, and was owned one-fourth 
by Joseph Moody and three-fourths by Ephraim Perkins. 

III. The cargo consisted of lumber and belonged to the owners of the vessel and in 
the same proportions. 

IV. The owners of said vessel and cargo obtained from William Gray insurance 
on said vessel and cargo — $4,000 upon the vessel and $2,000 upon the cargo — for the 
respective proportions in which thay owned the same, viz, Joseph Moody one-fourth, 
amounting to $1,500, and Ephraim Perkins three-fourths, amounting to $4,500, pay- 
ing for the same a premium of 18 per cent, amounting to $1,080 — one-fourth, amounting 
to $270, being paid by said Joseph Moody, and three-fourths, amounting to $810, 
by said Ephriam Perkins. The said William Gray paid to the insured the full amount 
of $6,000, in the proportions in which they were respectively insured, as and for a 
total loss. 

V. The losses by reason of the capture, condemnation, and loss of the Eliza were 
as follows: 

Value of vessel $3, 500 

Value of cargo 2, 500 

Freight earnings 2, 232 

Premium of insurance 1, 080 

Total 9, 312 

VI. The losses of the several parties by reason of the capture, condemnation, and 
loss were as follows: 

Joseph Moody: 

One-fourth of vessel $875 

One-fourth of cargo 625 

One-fourth of freight 558 

One-fourth premium of insurance 270 

Total . 2, 328 

Less one-fourth insurance collected 1, 500 

Total loss -. 828 

The claim of Ephriam Perkins was not filed until March, 1889. 

William Gray: 

Insurance paid : $6, 000 

VII. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the 
respective parties who suffered the original losses, and have otherwise proved to the 
satisfaction of the court that the persons whose estates they represent were citizens 
of the United States and were the same persons who suffered losses by reason of the 
capture of the Eliza, and that they represent the next of kin of such persons respectively. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 775 

Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims 
growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d 
of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions 
of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, 
which have never been assigned, nor does it appear that any of said claims are owned 
by an insurance company. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French 
Republic prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and 
the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800 ; that said claims 
were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty 
in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against 
the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the 
United States: 

No. 4054. Theodore B. Moody, administrator of Joseph Moody, deceased, 

eight hundred and twenty-eight dollars $828. 00 

Walter L. Dane, administrator of Ephraim Perkins, deceased; no 
allowance is made for the reason that the claim was not filed 
within the limitation of the statute. 
32. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, deceased, six 

thousand dollars 6, 000. 00 

2328. Stephen F. Fairfield, administrator of William Taylor, deceased, 
has proved no valid claim. 

By the Court. 
Filed December 2, 1901. 

A true copy. 

Test, this 31st day of January, A. D. 1902. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

FINDINGS IN CASE OF BRIG BETSEY, BOYER, MASTER. 

[Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885: 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement 
to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Betsey, Daniel Boyer, master.] 

No. of 
case. Claimant. 

5268. Samuel Abbott Fowle, administrator of the estate of George Makepeace, 
deceased, v. The United States. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 

These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of March, 1907. 

The claimants were represented by Charles W. Calgett, esq., and the United States, 
defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistants in the Department of 
Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attor- 
ney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. 

CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. 

The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the 
same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: 

I. The brig Betsey, Daniel Boyer, master, was a duly registered vessel of the United 
States, of 140 tons burthen, was built at Newburyport, Mass., in 1785, and was owned 
by Samuel Dowse, a citizen of the United States. 

The brig Betsey, Daniel Boyer, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Boston, 
Mass., on the 16th day of February, 1794, bound for Cape Francois. On March 16, 
1794, said vessel arrived at Cape Francois, where, on the 24th day of May, 1794, by the 
order of the French administration at that place, the cargo of the Betsey was confiscated. 
The circumstances attending the confiscation are stated in the order of Bignon, the 
head of the administration, as follows: 

' ' In the name of the French Republic, Captain Daniel Boyers, commander of the 
brig Betsey, is ordered to land immediately all his cargo that it-may be brought to 



776 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

succor the troops who are destitute of everything, the magazines of the Republic 
being entirely exhausted, and to this effect a guard is sent on board the said brig suffi- 
cient for the prompt execution of our orders. And the said captain shall be paid at 
the current rate of the place, by all the means that may be in our power. 
"The Cape, March 23, 1794, the third year of the French Republic. 
"By the head of the administration. 

"(Signed) Bignon. 

' 'Approved by us, commandant of the place. 

' ' ( Signed) Village. ' ' 

Daniel Boyer, the master, in his protest, states the circumstances of the seizure' of 
the cargo in the following language: 

' ' That I sailed from Boston in said^brig on the 16th day of February last, and meeting 
with nothing very remarkable on my passage I arrived in good order at the port or 
harbor of Cape Francois, in the island of Hispaniola, on the 16th clay of March last, 
having on board fish, beef, pork, flour, candles, soap, lard, bacon, cheese, butter, 
boards, etc.; that on my arrival at the cape I was prevented by the Government from 
selling my cargo to the most advantage, and Government insisted on my delivering 
the whole of it to the officers of said Government; that I refused doing it, alleging that 
it was an infringement on my right, and presented a memorial to the Government by 
which I offered to deliver to the Government the articles most necessary to life and 
demanded the privilege granted to others before me of selling the rest of my cargo to 
the inhabitants. My demand was not granted, and an ordinance of the chief of the 
administration, Mr. Bignon, dated the 23d of March and revised by the commander 
in chief, Mr. Villate, was produced to me by a detachment of armed men sent on 
board of my vessel to unload immediately all my cargo for the use of the garrison, con- 
taining a promise that I should be paid at the current price of the place, in conse- 
quence of which my cargo was taken by force by the Government at the prices men- 
tioned in the account annexed, made by the storekeeper of the public magazine, 
accepted by Mr. Bignon, chief of the administration, at much lower rates than I could 
have obtained from the. inhabitants; that I was promised to be paid in produce and 
waited from the 4th April (that I was unloaded) till the 18th May to receive the pay- 
ment, but was finally answered that it was not in the power of the Government to pay 
me, not being able to get the produce, the enemy being master of the country round 
them, and they could not give me the money and accordingly gave me the certificate 
of the same date annexed to certify it. I then prepared to get away and made out 
the night of the 24th May through the squadron of Spaniards, which were then cruising 
off the harbor, without being discovered, and arrived at Boston' on the 11th of June 
current. And the said Daniel Boyer, for the causes aforesaid, has requested me to 
protest against the aforesaid Mr. Villate, commander in chief, and Mr. Bignon, 
the chief of the administration, for all damages, losses, cost, and charges sus- 
tained or to be sustained by reason of the seizing and taking away by an armed force 
the cargo of said brig, as aforesaid, and refusal to pay him the just value thereof, as 
aforesaid. (Signed) Daniel Boyer, Andrew Gardner, Thomas Woodman, Lewis Burn. 

"Wherefore I, the said notary, at the request aforesaid, have protested, and do 
hereby solemnly protest, against the said Mr. Villate, commander in chief of Cape 
Francois at the time aforesaid, and Mr. Bignon, chief of the administration at the 
same time and place, and all others concerned, for all damages, injuries, losses, costs, 
and charges suffered and sustained, or to be suffered and sustained, by the owners, 
freighters, insurers, and all others whom it doth or may concern by reason or in con- 
sequence of the taking away by armed force the cargo of the said brig Betseji and 
refusing to make, and the not having made, payment in w T hole or in part for any of 
the said articles of said cargo so forcibly taken and carried away as aforesaid. This 
done and protested at Boston aforesaid, on the day and year aforesaid, in the pres- 
ence of the said Daniel Boyer, master of the said brig, and Andrew Gardner, mate, 
and Thomas Woodman and Levi Burn, seamen on hoard the said brig at the time of 
her mirfortune, who severally made oath to the truth of the foregoing declaration by 
them subscribed. In faith of the premises. (Signed) Samuel Barrett, Notary Pub- 
lic, as aforesaid. (Seal.)" 

II. The cargo of the Betsey, at the time of capture, consisted of pork, hog's lard, 
butter, bacon, cheese, soap, candles, fish, beef, flour, and pine boards; was owned 
by Samuel Dowse, a citizen of the United States, and was of the value at the time ot 
seizure of $11,250.75. 

III. On the 12th day of June, 1794, said Samuel Dowse sold, transferred, andassigned 
said claim for the cargo so taken at Cape Francois to Stephen V r ernon, of Boston, Mass., 
in consideration of the. sum of £4,000, or $13,320, paid by said Vernon to said Dowse. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 777 

On the 25th day of July, 1797, said Stephen Vernon sold and assigned said claim to 
David Stearns, of Charlestown, Mass., in consideration of the sum of £4,000, or $13,320, 
paid by said Stearns to said Vernon. 

Thereafter the said Dowse repurchased said claim from said David Stearns and trans- 
ferred it to George Makepeace, a citizen of the United States. At the date of said 
repurchase by said Dowse of said Stearns, said Samuel Dowse was indebted to said 
George Makepeace, in a sum exceeding $11,400, and assigned said claim to said Make- 
peace in payment thereof; that from the said 17th of May, 1798, until the prerent 
time said claim has been in the possession of and held by the said George Makepeace 
and his heirs. 

IV. The loss of the said George Makepeace, who was a citizen of the United States, 
by reason of said confiscation was: 

The value of the cargo $11,250.75 

The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for 
whom they appear and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the 
person for whose estate he has filed the claim is in fact the same person who suffered 
loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Betsey, as set forth in the 
preceding findings. 

Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and 
the Republic of France concluded, on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim 
growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the 
provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d 
of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of 
the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. 

The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has 
been assigned except as aforesaid. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 

The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were 
illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon 
the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 
States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; 
that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States 
by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims 
of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the follow- 
ing sum from the United States: 

Samuel Abbott Fowle, administrator of the estate of George Makepiece, 
deceased, assignee of Samuel Dowse, eleven thousand two hundred and 
fifty dollars and seventy-five cents $11, 250. 75 

The owners of the vessel and freight are not in court. 

By the Court. 
Filed April 1, 1907. 
A true copy. 

Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. 
[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 



Miscellaneous Claims for Direct Appropriation and for 
Other Purposes. 

PAYMENT OF OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 

[Senate Report No. 82, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2802) to provide for the 
payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by 
limitation, respectfully report the bill back and recommend that the same do pass. 

A similar bill was introduced in the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and favorably 
reported from this committee on June 2, 1900 (S. Rept. 1623, 56th Cong., 1st sess.). 
No further action was taken in the Senate during that Congress. 

In the Fifty-seventh Congress another bill, also precisely similar in terms, was intro- 
duced and favorably reported by this committee on June 27, 1902. 

Senate bill 2429 was passed by the Senate January 31, 1903, but was not reached on 
the Calendar in the House of Representatives. 

In the Fifty-ninth Congress another bill, also precisely similar in terms, was intro- 
duced and favorably reported by this committee on January 31, 1907. A copy of the 
report on that bill, Senate Report No. 5834, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session, is 
annexed to this report and made a part hereof. 

The bill reported, Senate bill 1181, was passed by the Senate February 27, 1907, but 
was not reported back in the House of Representatives. Similar bills have been 
introduced in the House of Representatives in the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Con- 
gresses, and have been favorably reported in each instance. 

The purpose of all these bills has been the payment of certain claims of letter carriers 
for services found by commissioners of the Court of Claims to have been performed by 
them in excess of eight hours per day and for which they are entitled to be paid extra 
under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled " An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in 
cities shall be employed per day," but which have been excluded or excepted from 
judgment for the sole reason that they were barred by the statute of limitations. 

Summarizing the reports of this committee hereinbefore referred to, the following 
facts appear: 

First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of 
precisely the same character as that of those upon which judgments have been entered 
and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly 
the same fooling. 

Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the 
Department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that 
their failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invita- 
tion of the Department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would 
appropriate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the 
claimants that relief should be afforded them. 

Third. Some of the parties also failed to present their claims from the fact that 
their immediate superiors in office represented to them that to present their claims 
might jeopardize their official positions. 

Your committee therefore reiterates its former conclusions and recommendations 
contained in Senate Report No. 5834, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session, and recom- 
mends the passage of the bill. 

OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 

[Senate Report No. 5834, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session^ 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill' (S. 1181) to provide for 
payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by 
limitation, respectfully report the bill back and recommend that the same do pass. 

A similar bill was introduced in the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and favorably 
reported from this committee on June 2, 1900 (S. Rept. 1623, 56th Cong., 1st sess.). 
No further action was taken in the Senate during that Congress. 

779 



780 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

In the Fifty -seventh. Congress another bill, also precisely similar in terms, was intro" 
duced and favorably reported by this committee on June 27, 1902. A copy of the 
report on that bill (S. Rept. 2111, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) is annexed .to this report and 
made a part hereof. 

Senate bill 2429 was passed by the Senate January 31, 1903, but was not reached on 
the Calendar in the House of Representatives. Similar bills have been introduced in 
the House of Representatives in the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Congresses, and 
have been favorably reported in each instance. 

The purpose of all these bills has been the payment of certain claims of letter carriers 
for services found by commissioners of the Court of Claims to have been performed by 
them in excess of eight hours per day and for which they are entitled to be paid extra 
under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers 
in cities shall be employed per day." but which have been excluded or excepted from 
judgment for the sole reason that they were barred by the statute of limitations. 

Summarizing the reports of this committee hereinbefore referred to, the following 
facts appear: 

First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of 
precisely the same character as that of those upon which judgment have been entered 
and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly 
the same footing. 

Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the 
Department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their 
failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invitation 
of the Department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropri- 
ate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claim- 
ants that relief should be afforded them. 

Third. Some of the parties also failed to present their claims from the fact that their 
immediate superiors in office represented to them that to present their claims might 
jeopardize their official positions. 

Your committee therefore reiterates its former conclusions and recommendations 
contained in Senate Report No. 2111, Fifty -seventh Congress, first session, and recom- 
mends the passage of this bill, f 



[Senate Report No. 2111, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S, 2429) to provide for 
(lie payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred 
by limitation, respectfully report the bill back with amendments and recommend 
that the bill as amended do pass. 

A bill precisely similar to the present bill was introduced in the last Congress, and 
was favorably reported by this committee June 2, 1900. The report on that bill 
(No. 1623) is annexed to this report and made a part hereof. Also annexed are extracts 
from House Report No. 1182, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, to accompany H. R. 
10315. 

Since the date of above reports an additional and final list of similar claims was 
transmitted to the Senate by the Attorney-General, at the second session of the Fifty- 
sixth Congress, constituting Senate Doc. No. 158 of that session. The letter of the 
Attorney-General transmitting that list is as follows: 

L*,., Department of Justice, 

Washington, D. C, February 8, 1901. 
To the Senate: 

I have the honor to transmit herewith a list in further response to Senate resolu- 
tion No. 40 of December 18, 1899, calling upon this Department for a list showing 
the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims, 
or found by the court, as representing services actually performed by letter carriers 
in excess of eight hours per day, under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled "An act to 
limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day," but which 
have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same 
were barred by the statute of limitations. 

The list herewith transmitted represents claims of precisely the same character as 
those contained in the list transmitted by this Department on the 10th of March, 
1900, and contained in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. They 
were examined by a commissioner of the Court of Claims in precisely the same man- 
ner as those contained in that list, and are contained in reports filed by the commis- 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 781 

sioner since the date of the transmission of that list, with the exception of a few cases 
accidentally omitted from the first list, and which are herewith included. 

As the investigation of this entire class of claims has now been completed, the present 
list, and that contained in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, comprise 
all claims of the description mentioned in the resolution of the Senate. 

My views on these claims, as stated in my letter of April 18, 1900, to the chairman of 
the Senate Committee on Claims, printed in S. Report No. 1623, Fifty-sixth Congress, 
first session, apply equally to those embodied in the accompanying list. 
Very respectfully, 

John W. Griggs, Attorney-General. 

Together these two lists comprise all the claims of the description called for in the 
resolution of the Senate. of December 18, 1899. 

That resolution was as follows: 

"Resolved, That the Attorney-General be directed to transmit to the Senate a list 
showing the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court 
of Claims or found by the court as representing services actually performed by letter 
carriers in excess of eight hours per day under the act of May twenty-fourth, eighteen 
hundred and eighty-eight, entitled ' An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in 
cities shall be employed per day,' but which have been excluded or excepted from 
judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations." 

The report of the Committee on Claims in the last Congress in favor of these claims 
was based upon the grounds assigned by both the Attorney-General and the Post- 
master-General in their reports upon the bill then before the Senate, showing that 
the reason for the nonpresentation of these claims within the proper time by the several 
claimants was due to the fact that the Post-Office Department officially informed the 
letter carriers throughout the country that — 

" It is not necessary to present these claims to the Court of Claims. If they are sent 
to this Department, they will receive proper attention. ' ' 

These representations, based upon the belief, in good faith, entertained by the Post- 
Office Department, that a sufficient appropriation for both the investigation and settle- 
ment of these claims would be made by Congress, were continued until the statute of 
limitations had barred a portion of the claims from presentation to the Court of Claims. 
When the claims therefore came to be presented to that court, as all of them ultimately 
had to be, they were met in whole or in part by the defense of .the statute of limitations. 
The peremptory provisions of that statute are such that although in ordinary cases 
the defense might have deemed it unconscionable to plead the statute of limitations, 
yet the Court of Claims was itself bound to refuse to allow a claim or part of claim 
which was more than six years old at the time the petition was filed. 

The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Finn v. United States (123 
U. S. Rep., pp. 227, 233), thus states the stringent character of the statute of limita- 
tions governing the Court of Claims : 

" It is a condition or qualification of the right to a judgment against the United 
States in the Court of Claims that the claimant, when not laboring under one of the 
disabilities named in the statute, voluntarily put his claim in suit, or present it at the 
proper Department for settlement, within six years after suit could be commenced 
thereon against the United States. 

"The general rule that limitation does not operate by its own force as a bar, but is 
a defense, and that the party making such a defense must, plead the statute if he 
wishes the benefit of its provisions, has no application to suits in the Court of Claims 
against the United States. An individual may waive such a defense, either expressly 
or by failing to plead the statute ; but the Government has not expressly or by impli- 
cation conferred authority upon any of its officers to waive the limitation imposed 
by statute upon suits against the United States in the Court of Claims. 

"Since the Government is not liable to be sued, as of right, by any claimant, and 
since it has assented to a judgment being rendered against it only in certain classes 
of cases, brought within a prescribed period after the cause of action accrued, a 
judgment in the Court of Claims for the amount of a claim which the record or evi- 
dence shows to be barred by the statute would be erroneous." 

The presentation of the claim to the Post-Office Department did not in any of the 
cases operate to save the case from the bar of the statute of limitations. The decision 
of the Supreme Court in the case just referred to was thus construed by the circuit 
court of appeals for the third circuit in the case of United States v. Utz (80 Fed. Rep., 
pp. 848, 851), as follows: 

"The presentation of the claim to the Treasury Department in the year 1893 did not 
stop the running of the statute, nor was the petitioners' right of action suspended 
during the investigation of the claim by the executive officers. The forbearance of 



782 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the claimants to sue was altogether voluntary on their part, and it is not within the 
power of the court to relieve them from the consequence of their failure to comply 
with the condition of the statute." 

The Court of Claims also maintains the same strict construction of the statute of 
limitations, as shown by the following extracts from its opinion in the case of Car- 
lisle v. United States (29 C. Cls. Rep., pp. 414, 415, 416): ' 

"A claim first accrues when money becomes payable, unless a special demand is 
required by law. It is so by the common law, which allows a suit to be brought 
upon a promissory note without a special demand, although the note itself contains 
a promise to pay on demand. A demand or presentation to the Treasury Department 
before bringing suit in this case was not necessary. 

"We know of nothing that prevents the running of the statute of limitations other 
than the disabilities specified in the statute itself (Wilder's Case, 13 Wall., 254), and 
nothing which makes it cease to run when once begun, other than the filing of a peti- 
tion in this court, except in cases transmitted by the head of an Executive Depart- 
ment under Revised Statutes, section 1063, as to which the Supreme Court held in 
Lippitt's Case (100 U. S., 633) that the presentation of such claim to the proper depart- 
ment within six years after it first accrued stops the running of the statute. ' 

"But the decision in Lippitt's case has no reference to a case commenced here, 
like the one now before us, by the voluntary petition of the claimant. We so held 
in the case of Green, whose voluntary petition, not filed within six years after his 
claim first accrued, was dismissed (17 C. Cls. R.. 174), but upon the same claim, 
afterwards transmitted by the Secretary of War under Revised Statutes, section 1063, 
he recovered judgment (18 C. Cls. R., 93)." T W\ 

Under ordinary circumstances it may well be true that the statute of limitations is 
a statute which should be enforced, and which is one of just and proper policyfon 
the part of the Government. Wherever the failure of the party to sue was due to 
his own neglect to take advantage of the legal remedy there can be no question he 
may properly be held to the consequences of his failure. Circumstances, however, 
may arise, which it is impossible for a court governed by the strict rules of the law 
to take into consideration and which may yet present themselves as just and indeed 
irresistible grounds for the equitable interposition of Congress. It is hardly possible 
to suggest a stronger ground of this character than a representation held out by a supe- 
rior officer in the public service, to his inferior officer, under which the latter forbears 
to seek his legal remedy for the adjudication of his claim. 

In the present instance, the Postmaster-General on the 8th of November, 1893, in 
a communication printed as House of Representatives Executive Document No. 8, 
Fifty-third Congress, second session, and quoted in full in the report of this committee 
in the last Congress, hereto annexed, informed Congress that the adjudication and 
settlement of these claims can be made by the Free Delivery Division of this Depart- 
ment direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a' sufficient 
appropriation for their payment. No such appropriation was ever made, but while 
waiting for and expecting the same, the Department continued to inform letter car- 
riers throughout the country that it was not necessary to present the claims to the 
Court of Claims, and that they would receive proper attention if sent to the Depart- 
ment. 

That these representations were made in good faith there can be no doubt. They 
were not, however, realized, because Congress never made any appropriation for the 
investigation of these claims by the Post-Office Department. Neither was any appro- 
priation ever made for their payment save the regular appropriations for judgments 
of the Court of Claims. 

Under these circumstances the Postmaster-General has stated: 

"As to the merits of the claims, I am of the opinion that the claimants are as a 
matter of justice entitled to relief in some form." 

In this opinion your committee concur, and believe that the good faith of the Gov- 
ernment requires that claimants should Dot be made to suffer from reliance upon the 
representation of their superior officer. They therefore adopt the report of the 
Committee on Claims in the last Congress. 

In addition to that report there is annexed hereto extracts from a House report in 
the last Congress, and also a consolidated list of all the claims embraced in Senate 
Documents 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and 158, Fifty-sixth Congress, 
second session, with a recapitulation by cities and States. A careful calculation shows 
that the amount of the claims is $282,943.88. Your committee therefore recommend 
an amendment, to the pending bill, inserting that as the amount. They therefore 
report back the bill (S. 2429) with that amendment and recommend its passage. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 783 

| {[Senate Report No. 1623, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] 

p The^Comrnittee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4018) to provide?for 
the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred 
by limitation, respectfully report as follows: 

This bill proposes to pay to the several parties named in Senate Document No. 
216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, the amounts set opposite their names, respec- 
tively, aggregating $220,674.24, for services as letter carriers in excess of eight hours 
per day, and reported by commissioners of the Court of Claims as due them under 
the provisions of an act entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers* in 
cities shall be employed per day," approved May 24, 1888 (Supp. Rev. Stat., second 
edition, Vol. I, p. 587), but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for 
the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations. 

Your committee referred this bill to the Postmaster-General for a report on the 
facts, with his opinion on the merits of the bill, in response to^'which they received 
the following letter: 

Office of the Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, April 14, 1900. 

Sir:*I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 
6th instant inclosing a copy of Senate bill No. 4018 and requesting that papers on file 
in this Department relating to the subject-matter of the bill be forwarded to your 
committee. 

In reply I have the honor to state that between the years 1889 and 1894 numerous 
claims for overtime were filed in this Department by letter carriers and ex-letter 
carriers. These claims were made out on blanks furnished by this Department to 
postmasters, and postmasters were required to certify on the blanks to the correct- 
ness of the claims. It was clearly the intention of the Department at that time to 
adjust and pay these claims, and an unexpended balance of an appropriation having 
been made available for this purpose in 1890 (26 Stat. L., p. 676) a number of such 
claims arising at Washington and Philadelphia were adjusted and paid. 
- No further appropriations were made to enable this Department to pay the claims, 
and there arose also questions as to the proper interpretation of the act of May 24, 
1888, "An act to limit the hours that letter earners in cities shall be employed per 
day." These questions were judicially determined by decisions of the Court of 
Claims in the case of Post v. United States (27 Ct. Cls. R., p. 244) and by the Supreme 
Court in United States v. Post (148 U. S. R., 124) and in United States v. Gates (148 
U. S. R., 134). 

After the decisions of the Supreme Court were announced the Postmaster-General 
issued an order to prevent the further making of overtime in the light of the decisions 
above mentioned. This order was followed by a circular letter of instructions to 
postmasters, dated April 5, 1893, and signed by the First Assistant Postmaster-General, 
in which the following reference to overtime claims is made : 

"In this connection, with a view to minimizing the correspondence, confusion, 
and delay incident to an equitable adjustment of valid claims for overtime services 
actually and necessarily performed, letter carriers may be informed that a new, and 
it is to be hoped a correct, form of claim blank will soon be sent by the Department, 
for the benefit of claimants, to the postmasters at all free-delivery offices whence 
overtime claims have emanated, upon which particular blank all claims heretofore 
submitted should be restated and upon which any subsequent claims may also be 
presented to the Department for adjustment." 

The intention of the Department to adjust these claims is further shown in a com« 
munication of the Postmaster-General to the Speaker of the House of Representatives- 
dated November 8, 1893 (Ex. Doc. No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session), and 
by letters sent out by this Department in answer to inquiries from claimants. As a 
sample of these letters, I quote one written to J. F. O'Connor, Springfield, Mass., 
under date of March 21, 1894: 

"Yours of the 27th ultimo received. You can not present your claims for back 
pay to the Court of Claims without having counsel to represent you. It is not nec- 
essary, however, to present these claims to the Court of Claims. If they are sent to 
this Department they will receive proper attention." 

As to the merits of the claims, I am of the opinion that the claimants are, as a matter 
of justice, entitled to relief in some form. 

Very respectfully, Ch. Emory Smith, 

Postmaster-General. 

Hon. Francis E. Warren, 

Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate. 



784 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Your committee also called upon the Attorney-General for his views upon the bill, 
which are shown by his response, as follows: 

Department op Justice, 
Washington, D. C, April 18, 1900. 

Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your communication of April 16, inclosing a copy 
of bill S. 4018, for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from 
judgment as barred by limitation. You request that I will cause to be forwarded, 
for the use of your committee, all papers on file in my Department relating to these 
claims, and also that I will favor the committee with my opinion as to the merits of 
the same. 

In reply, I have the honor to state that the list of persons and amounts to which 
this bill is intended to apply, contained in Senate Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, 
first session, to which the bill refers, was made out in response to a resolution of the 
Senate of the date December 18, 1899, calling upon this Department for a list of the 
amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims as 
representing services actually performed by letter carriers in excess of eight hours 
per day. This list was prepared under my direction by an expert employee of this 
Department, who has, during the past five years, assisted the commissioners of the 
Court of Claims in preparing their reports to the court of overtime of letter carriers. 
The list was made out by Mm from an examination of each one of the two thousand 
or more reports of overtime of letter carriers which have been made to the Court of 
Claims by the commissioners appointed for the purpose during the past six years, 
and was based upon the statements contained in such reports of the amount and 
value of overtime services performed by letter carriers for which claim was barred by 
the statute of limitations governing actions in the Court of Claims. 

These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an 
investigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting 
upon claims. not barred, and, in fact, are a part and parcel of each report. The 
result of this work is undoubtedly correct, and the total amount of such claims as 
ascertained by careful computation, is 1220,674.24. . There are no papers on file in 
this Department relating to these claims, and the papers from which computation of 
the same was made are part of the files of the Court of Claims; hence I am unable to 
forward, for the use of your committee, any papers in the premises. 

As regards the merits of these claims, they were excluded from the consideration 
of the Court of Claims solely by reason of the statute of limitations, above referred 
to. The various amounts were ascertained by commissioners of the Court of Claims, 
who were appointed by the court for the purpose of inquiring into the facts relating 
to the claims of letter carriers throughout the United States for overtime sendees, 
and the correctness of their work is evidenced by the fact that their reports have 
almost invariably been accepted, not only by the claimants, but by the United States, 
as being just and fair. I am satisfied, too, that these reports were eminently conserva- 
tive. 

As the only objection that I am aware of to these claims is a technical one, it is 
my opinion that, provided the failure of the claimants to present their claims to the 
court before the statute of limitations commenced to run against the same can be 
satisfactorily explained, these claims are as meritorious as any of those upon which 
judgment has heretofore been rendered by the court. 
Very respectfully, 

John W. Griggs, Attorney-General. 

Hon. Francis E. Warren, 

Chairman of the Committee on Claims, 'United States Senate. 

Your committee also deem it pertinent to this report to quote the response of the 
Postmaster-General sent in 1893 to the House of Representatives in answer to a 
resolution inquiring the mode of settlement of these claims, and printed as House 
of Representatives Ex. Doc. No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session, as follows: 

Office of the Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, November 8, 1893. 
Sir: Replying to resolution of inquiry on the part of the House of Representa- 
tives, dated November 3, 1893., as to whether the claims of letter carriers for compen- 
sation for services in excess of eight hours per day, under act of May 24, 1888, as 
construed by the Court of Claims March 7, 1892, are being received, and whether in 



ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 785 

the settlement of these claims the services of attorneys are necessary, I have the 
honor to state: 

(1) That claims are now, from time to time, being received, which are additional 
to a large number already on file in this Department, including those adjudicated by 
the honorable Court of Claims but not yet paid. 

(2) I am of opinion that the services of attorneys are unnecessary, either in behalf 
of claimants or the Government, for the reason that the settlement of these claims 
will necessarily be made from records kept in the several post-offices, in connection 
with the departmental records, and will be a matter for clerical rather than legal 
capacity. It is true that in very many, perhaps nine-tenths of the claims on file, 
powers of attorney were filed simultaneously with the claims, but no action has yet 
arisen in the settlement thereof in which attorneys have been recognized, except 
informally, by the Department. 

The adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the free-delivery 
division of this Department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their 
investigation and a sufficient appropriation for then payment. The adjudication of 
similar claims heretofore paid was affected in this manner. 
Very respectfully, 

W. S. Bissell, Postmaster-General. 
Hon. Chas. F. Crisp, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

No such general appropriation as was suggested by the last paragraph of this response 
was ever made, either for the purpose of affording a sufficient clerical force or for the 
payment of the claims. All claimants, therefore, necessarily had to take their cases 
into the Court of Claims. Wherever the claim was presented more than six years after 
the rendition of the services the carrier was unable to obtain judgment for such part 
as accrued more than six years before the filing of the petition, under the provisions of 
section 1059 of the Revised Statutes, which is in the following words: 

"Every claim against the United States cognizable by the Court of Claims shall be 
forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the 
court * •* * within six years after the claim first accrues." 

In order to facilitate the settlement of this very numerous class of claims, com- 
missioners were appointed to examine and report fully the amounts due the several 
claimants. The form of their commission will be found printed in the report of the 
case of Adams v. United States (33 Ct. Cls. R., pp. 411, 415), as follows: 

"Upon motion of the Assistant Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, 

it is hereby ordered that be, and- is hereby, constituted a commissioner of 

this court in the above-entitled action and such other actions as may be brought before 
him by consent of the parties or order of court. 

"He shall investigate such claims, upon any books, records, or documents relating 
thereto, and upon such evidence, oral or written, as he may deem material, and shall 
report the facts found by him to exist, together with a computation of the amounts 
due the several claimants therefor. 

"He shall have power to examine claimants and other witnesses, at any place within 
the county of their respective residences; to exercise the powers of a commissioner 
of the court; he may in any case where he deems it material, or at request of either 
party, attach to his' report any depositions or other evidence taken by him. In case 
any claimant shall in writing request of such commissioner opportunity to be repre- 
sented by counsel upon the taking of testimony, said referee shall allow reasonable 
time for procuring the attendance of such counsel. 

"Upon the coming in of any report of such referee, either party shall have the 
right to object to any detail of such report and computation and to take any evidence 
in support either of the claim or the defense in the same manner as if no such report 
had been made. 

"This appointment may be revoked at any time by order of this court." 

The commissioners in the examination of the claims reported on the amount of 
overtime made by the carriers and the statutory compensation therefor, and judg- 
ments were entered upon these reports for all amounts which had been earned within 
the six years before the time the petition had been filed in each case, respectively. 
Wherever a portion of the claim was over six years old, the amount representing 
such portion was excluded or excepted from judgment under the bar of limitation 
enacted by section 1059 of the Revised Statutes as above quoted. The report of 
the Attorney-General, contained in Senate Doc. No. 216, contains the tabulated 
statement of the amounts thus reported by commissioners as having been actually 
earned for overtime made under the act of May 24, 1888, but excluded or excepted 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 50 



786 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

from judgment on the sole ground of limitation. The Attorney-General states that 
the reports of the commissioners were eminently conservative, and have almost invari- 
ably been accepted, both by the claimants and by the United States, as just and 
fair. Also that — 

"These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an 
investigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting 
upon claims not barred, and, in fact, are a part and parcel of each report." 

The total amount for which judgments have been entered by the Court of Claims 
is about $3,000,000, as shown by the Report of the Postmaster-General for 1897, page 
95, leaving as excluded or excepted from judgment, for the sole reason that the claims 
were barred by limitation, the amount of claims contained in Senate Document 
No. 216 and provided for by the present bill, aggregating $220,674.24. As the inves- 
tigation upon which these claims were found due was of precisely the same char- 
acter as that which , resulted in the entry of the large amount of judgments which 
have been paid by appropriations in the regular deficiency bills, and as the failure 
of these claimants to present their claims to the Court of Claims in time was not due 
to their own fault, but to the belief, for which they had a good apparent foundation, 
in many written statements of the Department itself, that the claims would be settled 
by the Department without contest, and without the necessity of suing in the Court 
of Claims, it is evident that the facts fully support the opinion of the Postmaster- 
General "that the claimants are, as a matter of justice, entitled to relief in some form." 

Since January 1, 1895, no appreciable overtime has been made by letter carriers. 
This fact is stated in the Postmaster-General's annual report for 1897, page 95. 

Your committee annex to this report a copy of the opinions delivered by the Su- 
preme Court of the United States on March 13, 1893, in which the act of May 24, 
1888, under which these claims arise, is set forth and fully construed. These opin- 
ions are reported in 148 United States Reports, pages 124 to 137. 

The examination of these claims by commissioners of the Court of Claims, upon 
which the judgments were based, from which the amounts provided for in the pend- 
ing bill were excluded or excepted,, were all made subsequently to the rendition of 
these opinions by the Supreme Court and in accordance therewith. 

Your committee therefore report back the bill, S. 4018, favorably and recommend 
its passage. 



[Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1061. October term, 1892. The United States, appellant, v. 
Aaron S. Post. Appeal from the Court of Claims.] 

[March 13, 1893.] 

Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: 

This is a suit brought in the Court of Claims by Aaron S. Post against the United 
States by an original petition filed March 26, 1891. A traverse of the petition was 
filed May 23, 1891, and an amended petition January 11, 1892. In the latter it is set 
forth that the claimant was, from May 24, 1888, to December 31, 1889, a letter car- 
rier in the post-office at the city of Salt Lake City, in the Territory of Utah, of the 
class entitled to a salary of $850 a year; that during that period he was from time to 
time actually and necessarily employed in excess of eight hours a day in the perform- 
ance of the duties assigned to him as such carrier, aggregating an excess of a specified 
number of hours; that by the act of Congress of May 24, 1888, chapter 308 (25 Stat., 
157), entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be em- 
ployed per day," he became entitled to extra pay for all the time during which he 
was so employed in excess of eight hours a day, and that he had applied to the Post- 
Office Department for payment of the same, and it had not been paid, and he claimed 
judgment for a specified amount and costs. A traverse of the amended petition was 
filed February 21, 1892. Eight other cases were before the Court of Claims and tried 
at the same time, with petitions in the same form and claiming various amounts, 
the claimants serving for various periods and their classes and salaries being various. 

The Court of Claims found that Post was a letter carrier at the post-office at Salt 
Lake City between May 24, 1888, and December 21, 1889, of the second class, at a 
salary of $850 a year. The other findings were as follows: 

"2. During their aforesaid terms of service said claimants were actually employed 
in the performance of their duties more than eight hours a day, the excess over such 
eight hours being shown in the following finding: 

"3. The manner, time, and nature of their employment was generally as follows: 

"They were required to report for duty at the post-office at 7 a. m. From 7 to 7.30 
they were employed within the post-office in the distribution of mail matter, that is 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 787 

to say, in taking letters and papers from newly arrived pouches, assorting them, and 
placing them in the boxes for box and general delivery. 

"From 7.30 to 8 they were severally engaged in arranging their own mail matter 
for carrier delivery by streets and numbers, and where the residence of a person was 
not expressed in the direction of a letter and was not known or remembered, in looking 
it up in the directory. 

"From 8 to 11 they were occupied on their routes in delivering and collecting mail 
matter. 

"From 11 to 11.30 they were engaged within the post-office building in making 
returns of persons not found and other things connected with their route delivery. 

"From 11.30 to 1 they were employed within the post-office in the general distri- 
bution of mail matter. 

"From 1 to 2 they were absent and off duty. 

"From 2 to 3.30 they were again employed on the post-office work of distributing 
general mail matter. 

"From 3.30 to 4 they were severally engaged in arranging their own mail matter 
for delivery/ 

"From 4 to 6 they were again occupied on their routes in delivering and collecting 
mail matter and in making their returns. 

"From 6 to 7 they were again absent and off duty. 

"From 7 to 8 they were again employed on the post-office work- of distributing 
general mail matter. 

"The above statement represents an ordinary or average day's employment. The 
time of going out and the time of being out on the routes in fact varied with the size 
of the mail, as did the time of their being relieved from duty at night. But their 
reporting for duty at 7 in the morning, at 2 in the afternoon, and at 7 in the evening 
was constant. 

"The above statement does not apply to Sundays. On Sundays the carriers made 
no deliveries. They were employed, however, in the office; but the time of employ- 
ment did not exceed eight hours. During the time covered by this claim there were 
9 earners and 3 clerks employed in said post-office. 

"4. The carriers, by one of their number, remonstrated against the performance 
of work hot connected with their duties as carriers. The postmaster, however, held 
that "under the regulations the postmaster could use them in that service.' He 
therefore required them to perform it. 

"5. During the time embraced within the present claims the following regulations 
of the Post-Office Department were in force, all under the general title, ' Free-delivery 
service' (Postal Laws and Regulations, 1887, pp. 259, 261, 266, 268, 269): 

'"Sec. 628. Postmasters to supervise carrier service. — Postmasters will supervise 
then carrier service, and are epecially enjoined — 

"'1. To see that superintendents, carriers, and clerks connected with this service 
are fully informed as to their responsibilities and duties. . . . 

"'3. To frequently visit the stations and see that the regulations are there observed 
and proper order and discipline maintained. 

"'4. To issue all necessary orders and instructions necessary to carry out the regula- 
tions and promote the efficiency of the service. 

'"5. To reprimand the carriers for irregularities or report them for removal to the 
superintendent of free delivery, as the nature of the offence may require. (See section 
642.) 

"'Sec. 642. Reprimand, suspension, and removal. — The due performance of their 
duty by earners, and the observance of law, regulations, and orders prescribed for 
their conduct, will be enforced by reprimand for slight offences; by suspension with 
loss of pay for more serious ones, not, however, to exceed thirty days; and by suspen- 
sion and recommendations for removals for grave offences, or persistent disregard of 
the rules herein prescribed, or of the orders of the postmaster not inconsistent here- 
with. In all other cases of recommendation for removal, carriers should not be sus- 
pended, but postmasters should await the action of the Department.' 

"All the following are under the subtitle, 'General duties of carriers.' 

"'Sec. 647. Duties generally. — Carriers shall be employed in the delivery and col- 
lection of mail matter, and during the intervals between their trips may be employed 
in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, but not as clerks. 

'"The delivery and collection by them must be frequently tested at irregular 
intervals to determine their efficiency. 

"'Sec 648. Delivery of matter. — The mails must be assorted and the carriers started 
on their first daily trip as early as practicable. They must proceed to their routes 



788 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

with expedition and by the most direct way. A schedule of the order of delivery of 
each route should be made in a legible hand by names of streets and numbers of 
houses, and the mail delivered according to such schedule. Mail matter directed to 
box numbers must be delivered through the boxes. Mail matter addressed to street 
and number must be delivered by carriers unless otherwise directed. Mail matter 
addressed neither to a box holder nor to a street and number must be delivered by 
carrier if its address is known or can be ascertained from the city directory; other- 
wise, at the general delivery. 

"'Sec. 649. Care in delivery of mail. — Carriers will exercise great care in the deliv- 
ery of mail to the persons for whom it is intended, or to some one known to them to 
be authorized to receive it. They will, in case of doubt, make respectful inquiry 
with the view to ascertain the owner. Failing in this, they will return the mail to 
the office, to be disposed of as the postmaster may direct.' 

" ' Sec. 651. Directory to be used to ascertain addresses. — *- Where a directory is published 
it must be used when necessary to ascertain the address of persons to whom letters 
are directed, and it should also be used in the case of transient newspapers and other 
matter of the third and fourth classes, where the error in or omission of street address 
is evidently the result of ignorance or inadvertance ; but when circulars, printed 
postal cards, or other matter, except letters, shall arrive at any post-office in large 
quantities, apparently all sent by the same person or firm, and from which the street 
addresses havebeen purposely omitted, the directory need not be used to supply 
such omission, 'and all of such circulars, &c, which can not readily be delivered 
through boxes or by carriers, shall be sent to the general delivery to await call.' 

"6. In the case of Aaron S. Post, the claimant, between the 24th day of May, 
1888, and the 31st day of December, 1889, was employed by order of the postmaster 
in excess of eight hours a day, as follows: 

"Before 7 a. m., the regular hour when the carriers reported for duty, he arrived 
at the office and opened the eastern mail, which came at about 5 in the morning, in 
order to prepare the same for the southern mail. This was done so that it would 
not have to lie over twenty-four hours. The time thus employed was two hundred 
and forty-six and one-half hours. 

"During intervals between 7 a. m., when carriers reported for duty, and 6 p. m., 
when their work as carriers ended, he was employed in the office in opening the 
mail, stamping it, and distributing the same, as hereinbefore stated, in excess of eight 
hours, nine hundred and eighty-six hours. 

"After his last trip and his returns as carrier were made — i. e., after 7 p. m. — he 
was employed on the post-office work of distributing general mail matter in the office 
four hundred and ninety-three hours." 

On such findings of fact the court found as a conclusion of law that Post was enti- 
tled to recover for 1,725J hours of extra work, amounting, at the rate of 29.1 cents 
per hour, to $502.12. The opinion of the court in the nine cases, including that of 
Post, is found in 27 Ct. Cls., 244. A judgment was entered in favor of Post, on March 
10, 1892, for $502.12, from which judgment the United States appealed to thiscourt. 

The act of May 24, 1888, reads as follows: "That hereafter eight hours shall consti- 
tute a day's work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, 
for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid for a day's work of a greater 
number of hours. If any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per 
day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same in proportion to the salary now 
fixed by law." 

The contention of the United States is that the statute has reference only to letter- 
carrier service, and that the claimant, to bring himself within its provisions, must 
show not only that he has performed more than eight hours of service in a day, but 
also that such eight hours of service related exclusively to the free distribution and 
collection of mail matter, and that the extra service for which he claims compensation 
was of the same character. 

In this connection reference is made to sections 1764 and 1765 of the Revised 
Statutes. Section 1764 provides as follows: "No allowance or compensation shall be 
made to any officer or clerk by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to 
any other officer or clerk in the same or any other Department, and no allowance or 
compensation shall _ be made for any extra services whatever which any officer or 
clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law." Section 
1765 provides as follows: "No officer in any branch of the public service, or any 
other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulation, shall 
receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, 
for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty whatever, 
unless the same is authorized by law and the appropriation therefor explicitly states 
that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 789 

Referring to section 647 of the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1SS7, which were 
in force during the time embraced within the claim in question, under the head of 
"Free-delivery sendee" (and which §647 is set forth in finding 5 of the Court of 
Claims), under the subtitle "General duties of carriers," it providing as follows: 
"Carriers shall be employed in the delivery and collection of mail matter, and, dur- 
ing the intervals between their trips may be employed in the post-office in such 
manner as the postmaster may direct, but not as clerks," it is contended for the 
United States that the duties of letter earners are a necessary incident to the creation 
of the free-delivery service; that the statute necessarily defines their sen-ices to be a 
distribution and collection of mail, and such other duties as are necessarily incident 
thereto, such as receiving the mail allotted to them by clerks in the" post-office, 
arranging it for distribution, and making a proper disposition of it, when not delivered, 
upon their return to the post-office; and that any other service which a carrier may 
perform is not contemplated by the act of May 24, 1888, and is an extra service within 
the meaning of sections 1764 and 1765 of the Revised Statutes, payment for which is 
not authorized by law. 

For the claimant it is contended that under section 647 of the regulations of the 
Department, as set forth in finding 5 of the Court of Claims, the extra service for 
which the claim is made was an employment of the letter carrier, not only in the 
delivery and collection of mail matter, but also in the post-office, during the intervals 
between his trips, in such manner as the postmaster directed, but not as a clerk. 

It is not stated in the findings that the claimant was so employed as a clerk, nor 
does it appear what the duties of a clerk in the post-office in question were, but 
merely that during the time covered by the claim there were nine carriers and three 
clerks employed in that post-office. It is also found, by finding 4, that the earners 
remonstrated against the performance of work not connected with their duties as 
earners; but that the postmaster held that under the regulations he could use them 
in that service, and therefore required them to perform it. This, in view of the pro- 
vision of section 647 of the regulations, is substantially a finding that they were not 
employed as clerks. 

The whole contention on the part of the United States amounts to this, that the 
Court of Claims has substantially found that none of the extra work for which com- 
pensation is claimed was incident to the general duties of the claimant as a letter 
carrier, and that the statute in regard to extra service relates exclusively to that 
which is connected with the general duties of the claimant as a letter carrier, and 
not to compensation for extra service when he is not employed for eight hours a day 
in the performance of his general duties as a letter carrier. 

The statute of 1888 provides that eight hours shall constitute a day's work ' ' for 
letter carriers" in cities or postal districts connected therewith. It does not state 
what duties the letter carriers shall perform during such day's work, but merely that 
they shall receive for such day's work of eight hours the same pay that was then 

f>aid for a day's work of a greater number of hours. It further provides that if a 
etter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight, he shall be 
paid extra for such greater number of hours in proportion to the salary fixed by law 
for his compensation. This extra pay is given to him by the statute distinctly for 
his being employed a greater number of hours per day than eight. The statute does 
not say how he must be employed, or of what such employment is to consist. It is 
necessary only that he should be a letter carrier, and be lawfully employed in work 
that is not inconsistent with his general business under his employment as a letter 
carrier. The employment authorized by section 647 of the regulations is defined to 
be an employment in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, 
during the intervals between the carrier's trips in delivering and collecting mail 
matter, provided that he be not employed in the post-office as a clerk therein. 

The Court of Claims, in its opinion, arrived at the following conclusions: (1) That 
the letter carriers were entitled to recover, not only for all work done by them on the 
street in delivering and collecting mail matter, but also for all work done in the post- 
office in receiving and arranging the letters of their routes; (2) that as to the distribu- 
tion of mail matter for the boxes and general delivery, as found in finding 3, during 
the times intervening between one trip and another in the same day the regulations 
of the Department, set forth in finding 5, could properly be construed as permitting 
such services; and (3) that as to the services of the same character rendered after the 
termination of the last trip for the day of the carrier in delivering and collecting mail 
matter, they were services fairly within the power of the postmaster to prescribe. 

We are of opinion that, in respect of all such services, the letter carrier, if employed 
therein a greater number of hours than eight per day, was entitled to be paid extra. 
To hold otherwise would be to say that the canier was employed contrary to the regu- 



790 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

lations of the Department, when it clearly appears that he was employed in accord- 
ance with such regulations. The statute was manifestly one for the benefit of the 
carriers, and it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to contend that the em- 
ployment in question was not extra service, and to be paid for as such, when it appears 
that the United States, in accordance with the regulations of the Post-Office Depart- 
ment, actually employed the letter carriers the extra number of hours per day, and it 
is not found that they were so employed as clerks. The postmaster was the agent of 
the United States to direct the employment, and if the letter carriers had not obeyed 
the orders of the postmaster they could have been dismissed. They did not lose their 
legal rights under the statute by obeying such orders. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the decision of this case. 



[Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1060. — October Term, 1892. The United States, appellant, 
v. Frank Gates. Appeal from the Court of Claims.] 

[March 13th, 1893.] 

Mr. Justice Blatckford delivered the opinion of the court. 

In this case, Frank Gates filed a petition in the Court of Claims May 27, 1891, set- 
ting forth that from May 24, 1888, to July 31, 1888, he was a letter carrier in the post- 
office at the city of New York, of the class entitled to a salary of $1,000 a year; that 
during that period he was, from time to time, actually and necessarily employed in 
excess of eight hours a day, in the performance of the duties assigned to him as such 
carrier, aggregating a specified excess; that by the act of May 24, 1888 (set forth in case 
No. 1061, just decided), he became entitled to extra pay tor all the time during which 
he was so employed in excess of eight hours a day; that he had applied to the Post- 
Office Department for payment, and it had not been paid; and that he claimed judg- 
ment for a specified amount, besides costs. A traverse of the petition was filed July 
14, 1891, and the case' was heard by the Court of Claims, which, on the evidence, 
found the facts to be as follow: 

"1. The claimant was, during the months of May, June, and July, 1888, a letter 
carrier of the first class, salary $1,000 a year, in the city of New York, in the State of 
New York. 

"2. From May 24, 1888, to July 31, 1888, he was actually and necessarily employed 
in the performance of his duties more than eight hours a day, .the excess over such 
eight hours being as follows : 

Hrs. Min- 

May, 1888 16 53 

June, 1888 : 78 58 

July, 1888 69 18 

Total 165 9 

"He has received no extra pay for the excess. 

"3. For the said period of time claimant performed only fifteen hours of service on 
the ten Sundays, and four hours and thirty minutes on Decoration Day, and the same 
time on the 4th day of July." 

On such findings of fact, the court found as a conclusion of law that Gates was 
entitled to recover for the 165 hours and 9 minutes of extra work performed by him, 
without being required to deduct therefrom the deficit of less than eight hours a day 
worked on Sundays and holidays, as shown by finding 3, amounting, at 34.2 cents 
per hour, to $56.48; and for that amount a judgment was entered for him, to review 
which the United States has appealed. 

In the opinion of the Court of Claims, reported in 27 Ct. CI., 244, 259, it is stated 
that No. 1061 (just decided) embraced, with a single exception, all the questions 
presented by the present case, No. 1060, besides many more questions; and that No. 
1060 presented one question which was not presented in the other cases. That ques- ' 
tion is stated in the opinion as follows: "On week days the carriers were employed 
more than eight hours, but on Sundays less, and the deficit of the latter nearly 
equals the excess of the former. The Post-Office Department, by its circular Febru- 
ary 19, 1891, has directed postmasters 'To determine the time a letter carrier may 
have been required to work during any month in excess of eight hours per day,' as 
follows: 

"'Ascertain the aggregate hours worked during the month. Multiply the number 
of days worked during the month by eight, and subtract the product thus obtained 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 791 

from the aggregate number of hours worked, and the remainder will be the extra 
time for which the carrier is entitled to pay at the following rates: 



Salary, i First quarter. Second quarter. 



Third and fourth 
quarters. 



Average quarter. 



$000 i 20| cents per hour 20f cents per hour 20f cents per hour ' 20| cents per hour. 

800 , 27f cents per hour 27J cents per hour 27J cents per hour 27§ cents per hour. 

850 29 J cents per hour 29i cents per hour 28J cents per hour 29/ T cents per horn 

1,000 34f cents per hour 34f cents per hour 34 cents per hour 34f cents per hour. 



"The time necessarily consumed in the performance of the service between "Re 
port for duty * * and ' ' End of duty " is the ' ' actual time " to be allowed , and the interim 
between deliveries is the carrier's own time, and can not in any case be charged 
against the United States.' 

"The carrier's eight-hour law declares 'that hereafter eight hours shall constitute 
a day's work,' but it allows compensation to continue in the form of an annual sal- 
ary, and requires no deduction to be made if the duties of the day do not extend 
through the prescribed time. It also declares that ' if any letter carrier is employed 
a greater number of horns per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same.' 
To sustain the interpretation given to the act by the Department it will be necessary 
to read in it by construction the words "on an average,' i. e., if any letter carrier is 
employed on an average a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be 
paid extra for the same. This the court is not at liberty to do. The carrier is enti- 
tled to eight hours' work and to his pay if work is not furnished to him. For any 
excess on any day he is entitled to extra pay. The only set-off that can be main- 
tained is when he is absent from duty without leave. The Department is at liberty 
to keep a carrier employed eight hours every day, but not to give him a deficit of 
work one day and an excess another." 

In the brief of the Solicitor-General in the present case, it is stated that in his opin- 
ion the decision of the Court of Claims was correct; that he is prevented from dis- 
missing the appeal only by the fact that another Department of the Government has 
differed from that view, and declines to follow it until the question is decided authori- 
tatively by this court: and that justice to the letter carriers seems, therefore, to 
require that the case be submitted to this court for its determination, which he does 
without argument. 

The conclusions which we have reached in No. 1061, cover the same questions aris- 
ing in this case which are presented in that; and, as the appellant does not challenge 
the decision of the Court of Claims as to the question presented in this case which is 
not presented in Xo. 1061, it is sufficient to say that we concur with the views of that 
court, above stated, as to that question. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Mr. Justice Jacksox took no part in the decision of this case. 



[House Report No. 1182, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10315) to provide 
for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred 
by limitation, respectfully report as follows: 

The claims referred to in this bill arise under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled "An 
act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day," which 
is as follows: 

"Be it enacted, etc.. That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day's work for letter 
carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive 
the same pay as is now paid as for a day's work of a greater number of hours. If any 
letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be 
paid extra for the same, in proportion to the salarv now fixed by law." (1 Supp. 
Rev. Stat., 587.) 

It is stated bv the Postmaster-General in his annual report for the year 1895, page 
118: 

"When the present administration assumed charge of the Post-Office Department 
it found in the files of the free-delivery division of this Bureau fully 4,000 overtime 
claims of letter carriers, aggregating over §15,000,000. and overtime accumulating at 
the rate of $250,000 per annum. Five years had passed since the enactment of the 



792 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 

eight-hour law, May 24, 1888, and the appropriations for the intervening years, notably 
that of the fiscal year 1888-89, had been especially increased to enable the Department 
to meet the requirements of the law, yet no appreciable decrease in the annual accu- 
mulation of overtime had been made." 

Two cases involving test questions under the act were brought before the Court of 
Claims and decided favorably to the carriers on the 7th of March, 1892, and will be 
found reported in the twenty-seventh volume of Court of Claims Reports, page 244. 
These cases were taken to* the Supreme Court on appeal, and the judgments affirmed 
March 13, 1893. The decisions of the Supreme Court will be found reported in 148 
United States Reports, pages 124 to 137. The opinions of the Supreme Court in these 
two cases are annexed to this report as an appendix. 

At the session of Congresss following the date of these decisions the House of Rep 
resentatives adopted a resolution calling on the Postmaster-General to state in what 
manner these claims would be settled. The response of the Postmaster-General to 
this resolution is dated November 8, 1893, and constitutes House Ex. Doc. No. 8, 
Fifty-third Congress, second session. It is annexed to this report as an appendix. 

It will be seen from this report that the House was informed by the Postmaster- 
General that "the adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the 
free-delivery division of this Department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force 
for their investigation and a sufficient appropriation for their payment." No such 
appropriation, however, was made, either for the purpose of providing clerical force for 
the investigation of the claims or for their payment. 

In consequence all the carriers in the country who had claims of this character — 
and they included practically all letter carriers who were in service from 1888 to 1893 — 
had ultimately to present their claims to the Court of Claims, The manner in which 
these claims were investigated is shown by the following statement from the report of 
the Postmaster-General for 1896, page 173: 

"To expedite a settlement in which the interests of the Department as well as those 
of the letter carriers might be fully protected, an arrangement was made with the 
Department of Justice, by which the assistant superintendent of the free-delivery 
system and another employee of this Department were commissioned by the Court of 
Claims special commissioners in the settlement of overtime claims by letter carriers." 

It is stated in the report of the Postmaster-General for 1897, page 95, that the total 
amount of these claims investigated and allowed by the commissioners, and in which 
judgments of the court have been entered and paid under the appropriations annually 
made in the deficiency appropriation act, have been over $3,000,000. 

Wherever, in investigating these claims, the commissioners ascertain that any por- 
tion of the claim was over six years' standing before the petition had been filed they nev- 
ertheless stated the amount that had been earned, and it was thereupon excluded or 
excepted from judgment by the court in entering judgment. It is these excluded or 
excepted amounts which the present bill proposes to pay. The Senate, on the 18th of 
December, 1899, adopted a resolution calling on the Attorney-General for a statement 
of the amounts so excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same 
were barred by the statute of limitations . In response to that call the Attorney-General 
transmitted a list, which has been printed as Senate Document 216. 

Your committee, through the subcommittee to whom this bill has been referred, 
called upon the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General, respectively, for their views 
on the propriety of this legislation. Each of those officers responded, and the purport 
of their statements may be summarized as follows : 

First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of pre- 
cisely the same character as that of those upon which judgments have been entered and 
paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly the 
same footing. 

Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the 
Department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their 
failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invitation of 
the Department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropriate 
for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claimants 
that relief should be afforded to them. 

The letters of the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General here referred to are 
annexed in full as appendixes to this report. 

In addition thereto there have been laid before your committee a large number of 
statements from claimants whose cases are embodied in the present bill explaining why 
they failed to present their claims until a portion thereof had been barred by limitation. 
Extracts from some of these letters are embodied in an additional appendix to this report. 
As in a general way their statements are corroborated by the statements made in the 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 793 

letter of the Postmaster-General to your committee, it is believed by your committee 
that the statements of the writers are entitled to credence. 

Under all the circumstances, there would be no justice in the Government taking 
advantage of the statute of limitations (Rev. Stats. , sec. 1069). which the parties in these 
cases were induced to disregard by the action of the Department itself, however hon- 
estly the Department acted itself, and in the full belief that Congress would confer 
upon it authority to settle the claims without the necessity of a recourse to the Court of 
Claims on the part of the claimants. 

The amount of the claims, as officially footed up by the Attorney-General in this let- 
ter to your committee, is $220,674.24. Your committee therefore report back the bill 
(H. R. 10315) with an amendment inserting that amount in place of the amount 
$221,451.37, as contained in lines 9 and 10 of the bill, and as so amended recommend its 



[Extracts from letters received from claimants concerning reasons why their claims were not presented 
in time to escape the action of the statute of limitations. These are typical of a very large number.] 

Davenport, Iowa. — Jn regard to this claim I will say that I sent it to the First Assist- 
ant Postmaster-General, on a blank that was supplied by him for this purpose, in De- 
cember, 1893, I think. 

This blank had a part of the overtime which I had made on it and was signed by Post- 
master as being correct and just. 

This claim was returned to me by the First Assistant, for the reason that I had only 
the overtime made each day made out, instead of having all of the time consumed each 
day shown; with the same envelope he returned me new blanks with instructions to 
properly fill out and on receipt of the same he also said that the Department would take 
action; he also informed me that it would not be necessary to employ the services of an 
attorney. 

Acting under these instructions, I made out another blank and had it signed by Mr. 
Fred A. Lisher, who was then postmaster, and forwarded it to the Department in the 
month of March, 1894, and since that time I have heard nothing from them. 

In regard to the other claims that you have from this city, I will say that at the time 
the overtime was made it was impossible for any of the men to file any claims and hold 
their positions. 

Pittsburg, Pa. — In connection with the matter I will say — at the time a post- 
office inspector visited this city and told us he was representing the Post-Office 
Department in the matter of settling our claims for overtime, fie told us the Depart- 
ment would settle with and pay us and that was the surest, safest, and perhaps the 
only way by which a settlement could be reached, as it might be twenty years before 
our claims would be reached before the Court of Claims. 

As he was recognized by the local post-office officials as an officer of the Depart- 
ment, I believed he spoke with authority and truthfully and thought any other than 
the plan he suggested would be useless, as well as likely to be considered discour- 
teous, and when no relief came from the Department, and as the statute of limita- 
tions was working against my claim, I at last tried the Court of Claims. 

Peoria, III. — At the time the postmaster at Bloomington, where I was employed, 
Hon. John Eddy, took my papers, after I had made out my claim for overtime, and 
sent them to the Post-Office Department instead of sending them to the claim depart- 
ment. My claim was sent in there in plenty of time. 

The inclosed letter will explain itself and show what the condition of affairs was at 
Washington. If you do not need this, please return same to me. 

Post-Office Department, 
Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D.. C, March 18, 1894. 
Sir: Yours of the 12th instant, in reference to your claim for overtime now on file 
in the Post-Office Department, has been received. 

In reply I have to state that it is impossible to give you any information concerning 
the probable date upon which the Department will take up these claims for settle- 
ment, as this is a matter depending entirely upon the action of Congress. 
Your claim will, however, have the same consideration shown others of like character. 
Very respectfully, 



First Assistant Postmaster-General. 



794 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Newark, N. J. — Referring to the claims in question as presented by the carriers of 
this office, we wish to state that in 1894 the carriers concerned presented, at the 
suggestion of the then superintendent of free delivery, their claims to the Post-Office 
Department. We were assured at the time that the claims would receive proper 
consideration, and those authorities being our highest superiors, we felt assured that 
our claims would be properly filed and given the consideration merited under the 
law. It appears, however, that those claims were permitted to remain on file and 
were never properly presented to the disbursing officers of the United States, and 
when a second claim was filed we learned through you that the claims originating 
prior to a certain time were outlawed by limitation. 

You will observe that as far as we are concerned we filed our claims in ample time 
to prevent the raising of the question of limitation of time, and it does not seem that 
in justice to us we should be deprived of what is legally and equitably our due simply 
because our superior officers of that time neglected or overlooked the matter. 

Paducah, Ky. — I, with four other carriers, sent our claims to the Post-Office Depart- 

% ment at Washington. They were returned, saying that there would be a commissioner 

call on us to adjust the claim, so I did not think it necessary to take any further steps 

until he came. So when the commissioner did come my time was debarred. I have 

no letters of any description, they all being destroyed. 

Lexington, Ky. — My claim for overtime as letter carrier in this city was filed in the 
Post-Office Department at Washington, D. O, about April 24, 1894. The claim was 

Erepared and made out upon a blank furnished by the Postmaster-General, and by 
is instructions was filed and acknowledgment of same received about May 1, 1894. 
Thinking that I had done as I should do, I allowed the claim to remain on file until 
December 12, 1894. I called upon the Postmaster-General for status of the claim, 
and in reply received notice that the claim would have to be filed in the Court of 
Claims, which was done, not, however, before the statute of limitations had been 
running for several months. In April, 1895, I filed an application with the Post- 
master-General to assist me in getting the part of the claim which was barred covering 
the period from May 24, 1888, to January 1, 1889. I have had several communications 
from the Post.-Office Department since that time, which I will forward to you. 

Post-Office Department, 
Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, April 20, 189S. 
Sir: Yours of the 14th instant, asking for a blank on which to make out a claim for 
overtime, has been received. J_n reply you are informed that the Department is now 
having an overtime blank prepared, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme 
Court, a supply of which will be furnished to postmasters at free-delivery offices as 
Boon as printed, when you can procure a copy from the postmaster at Lexington. 
Very respectfully, 



First Assistant Postmaster-General. 



Post-Office Department, 
Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, June 30, 1893. 
Sir: * * * In compliance with your request, we inclose you herewith a "claim 1 *' 
blank, as requested. 

Very respectfully, , 

Acting First Assistant Postmaster-General. 



Post-Office Department, 
Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, March 17, 1904. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 8th, referring to claim for overtime, has been received.. In 
reply you are informed that the matter will be carefully attended to at the earliest 
opportunity, and you will be duly informed of the action of the Department. 
Very respectfully, 



First Assistant Postmaster-General. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 795 

Post-Office Department, 
^ Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, April 17, 1894. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 24th, referring to claim for overtime, also statement of 
same, has been received. In reply you are informed that the matter will be care- 
fully attended to at the earliest opportunity, and you will be duly informed of the 
action of the Department. 
Veiy respectfully, 



First Assistant Postmaster-General . 

Scranton, Pa.— One reason why this claim was not prosecuted in time was because 
I, with others, was under the impression that it would be recognized and paid by 
the Government without presenting it through a regular legal process before the 
Court of Claims, and when I found out to the contrary this portion of my claim had 
been barred by the statute of limitations. We thought if our claims would be paid 
simply upon their presentation we could save the legal expenses. 

Altoona, Pa. — The reason why I did not file my claim for overtime before it was 
barred by the statute of limitations was that the then postmaster said that any car- 
rier who attempted or would file any claim for overtime during his term as post- 
master of this office he would report them to the Post-Office Department and recom- 
mend their dismissal from the service. This was the rod he held over us. And to fur- 
ther display his unkind and unjust disposition in the matter, after , our at- 
torney, who visited our office and took up the claims, he called me into his private 
office and took my name as one of the applicants, and stated to me that any carrier 
who had filed an overtime claim he would report him to the Department and use 
his efforts to have him dismissed from the service. It was his intimidating and un- 
kind disposition toward the carriers that kept them from filing their claims at an 
earlier date, because no earner cared to lose his place on that account. 

Paducah. Ky.— This claim, in connection with others, was entered in April, 1893. 
* * * They were sworn to before Postmaster Ed. Farley and made out upon sheets 

furnished by the Department and forwarded by Postmaster to Washington; 

I think to the First Assistant Postmaster-General. 

Little Rock, Ark. — Was given to understand by officials of the Department that it 
would not be necessary to put the claim in hand of a lawyer for collection nor in 
Court of Claims; that it would be paid without this. 

Indianapolis, Ind. — The general impression that these claims would be adjusted by 
the Department and a delicacy in bringing suit against a Department where you had 
worked for years and hoped to continue was the cause of delay in my case as in many 
others. 

Lynchburg, Va. — We, the undersigned carriers, beg leave to say that the nonpresen- 
tation of our claims for our overtime was due to the prevailing impression made upon 
us by the ex-postmaster of this city, Mr. , that we would jeopardize our posi- 
tions. Therefore we deemed it not necessary. 

Lynchburg, Va. — I had several conversations in regard to the matter with , 

who was then superintendent of carriers, and he informed me that the Government 
would not pay the claim. I was also advised by my friends not to press my claim, as 
it would likely have some effect upon my position. 

Wilkesbarre, Pa. — I handed my claim to our postmaster for approval, and he came 
to me about a month after and told me that he received a letter from the Post-Office 
Department at Washington stating that my claim had been received and would ceive 
prompt attention. 

Owensboro, Ky. — We were under the impression these claims would be paid with- 
out the sendees of an attorney. 

Portland, Me. — The postmaster gave my overtime to me on a paper signed by him; 
told me to mail the same to the First Assistant Postmaster-General. I did as requested 
by the postmaster. Nearly six years later I learned the Court of Claims was the place 
to obtain judgment on the same. I wrote the Post-Office Department for my papers. 
They were mailed to me. I mailed them to my attorney, - — — . I was in- 
formed by him some time later that my claim was barred by lapse of time. 

Pittsburg, Pa. — There was a Government inspector here who told us that he was 
here for the purpose of fixing our claims, and we need not do anything, as the Gov- 
ernment would pay us. So you can see why we did not get our claims in. 

Macon, Ga. — Some years ago the carriers interested appointed a com- 
mittee of one to wait upon our then postmaster and ask his advice as to what 

steps we should take in the matter, which was as follows: That he did not object to 
our getting the claim paid, but he was afraid we would lose our positions if we per- 



796 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

sisted in pushing the claim. Being governed by this advice, we were afraid to act in 

the matter until visited our city and assured us that we would not jeopardize 

our positions in presenting these claims. 

New Britain, Conn. — My claim was presented in time and it was not, or any part of 
it, barred by limitation. If there was any delay it was no fault of mine, because my 
claim was sent in time, and if it was not filed in the Court of Claims it was because it 
must have been pigeonholed or neglected in some department of the Government. 
In the first place the Postmaster-General sent papers to the postmaster in New Britain 
asking or making inquiry if any of the employees or letter carriers had any claims 
against the Govermnent for overtime work. I filled out the papers and returned them 
to the Postmaster-General long before my claim was barred by limitation. After I 
had sent the papers to the Postmaster-General, and I assumed that was all that was 
necessary to be done, but it seems that instead of the Government representative pre- 
senting them to the Court of Claims that they were pigeonholed as above referred to. 
As nothing was being done I asked to have my papers returned , and I then forwarded 
them to the attorney who was acting for me and others at the time in Washington, and 
I was then told that part ofthe claim was barred by limitation. There has been no 
neglect upon my part, and it seems to me that the neglect was upon the part of some 
of the Government employees at Washington. 

Chattanooga, Term. — Five carriers write as follows: "In regard to the reason or 
question why we did not present our claims before we were barred by the statute of 
limitations, we beg leave to state that soon after the passage of the "eight-hour ' law 
our claims were presented, having just been made out by our superintendent at this 
post-office, or made by us and verified by him. The Government sent an inspector 
here to examine into the matter, and he decided unless we worked eight hours per 
day for seven days in each week, including Sunday, we could not recover pay for our 
time. This decision caused us to make no further effort for the time being then. 
Soon afterwards a declaration or statement was made by our Postmaster-General that 
these claims would be paid, and that it would not be necessary for carriers to employ 
counsel or attorneys, as the Government would pay the claims without this expense. 
So the claims did not become barred because we had not made the demand, but be- 
cause we had not demanded them through an attorney in a legal way. We claim the 
lapse of time was caused, first, by the decision against us by the inspector on account 
of his idea of fifty-six hours constituting a week's work; second, on account of state- 
ment of Postmaster-General that the claims would certainly be paid without it 
being necessary to put them in hands of an attorney." 

These claims were promptly filed on blanks furnished by the Post-Office Depart- 
ment for that purpose. 



Chief District, in Charge of Carriers. 

Warren, Ohio. — The advice I got from our postmaster at that time was not to send 
in any claim, for the Post-Office Department had out spies looking up carriers that 
made claims for overtime, so I did not make any claim, as I would have liked to. 

Philadelphia, Pa. — I was in the post-office at the time the claims were first made 
out. We had a committee of the carriers, and two of them went to Washington to 
represent us in the matter of overtime, and they told us they got it from good author- 
ity that we should file our claims for overtime in the Post-Office Department at Wash- 
ington, and we were not informed differently until almost half of our claims were 
barred by the statute of limitations. 

Bradford, Pa. — Will say I wrote direct to the Department and received answer 
that as soon as there was any appropriation made for payment of said claims I would 
be paid in full. They also entered my claim. 

Lexington, Ky. — Will inform you that I was told by a first assistant postmaster at 
Lexington that it was not necessary; that the Post-Office Department would have 
claim properly filed without it. 

Trinidad, Colo. — I was informed by the postmaster that if such application were 
made it would not be allowed and that it would jeopardize my position in the service. 

Danville, III. — I carried mail from July 4, 1889, till about the middle of January, 
1892, remaining in the office till April 4, 1892, leaving on this date for Managua, Nica- 
ragua. Some time while I was in Nicaragua some of my friends notified me that I 
was entitled to overtime. I wrote to them and made all the inquiries possible, but 
as it took some four or five months to get an answer and sometimes not any at all, I 
could not do anything until I returned here in December, 1897. 

Beaver Falls, Pa.— The reason the claims of the carriers were not file before the 

limitation had cut out part of the time was because the postmaster, — , advised 

us not to file our claim for overtime, as we might lose our positions by so doing. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 797 

Scranton, Pa. — My case, with several others, was presented at the Post-Office 
Department, office of First Assistant Postmaster-General, Superintendent Free-Deliv- 
ery System, Washington, D. C, October 3, 1890, and they were filed for considera- 
tion when reached in their order. 

Middletown, Ohio. — The Postal Department forwarded to me a blank form upon 

which to make out the claim. I called upon , then postmaster of Middletown, 

and showed him the form and requested permission to examine the time sheet in 

order to get the data. While I was at work upon that Mr. said to me "that 

I had better not file my claim, as it would not amount to anything, and might cause 
the Department to secure our dismissal from the service." As he was my superior 
officer at the time, and I presumed that he knew the postal laws, or had information 
which was reliable, I refrained from making out the claim for the reason that I could 
not afford to lose my position, particularly if the claim would not be allowed. This 
occurred on several occasions, and my sole reason for not presenting my claim at that 
time, or until the same was barred by the statute, was that through my postmaster's 
influence I was persuaded not do to so, and feared that if I did either that he or some 
other person in authority would cause my dismissal from the service. 

Philadelphia, Pa. — In August, 1890, I sent my claim to Postmaster-General, Wash- 
ington, D. C, with the understanding that he would see that I got my claim. On 
August 13, 1890, I received a letter from Acting Superintendent Free-Delivery System 
that my claim had been received, and that I would be paid in my turn. 

New Orleans, La. — I consulted superintendent carriers, New Orleans, La.; he told 
me I could do what I thought best, and gave me as his opinion that any overtime 
that was due me would be recognized by the Department when the commissioners- 
came down to examine the records, and then it would be time enough to file my 
claim. To my surprise you informed me about the limitation clause. 

Sheboygan, Wis.- — When the letter carriers throughout the country were notified to 
send in their claims, the carriers of this office also took action preparatory to sending 
in said claims. Mr. , who was then our postmaster, disapproved of our inten- 
tion in a very decided manner, even going so far as to send the false statement to the 
Department at Washington that the question of overtime had been settled by him 
in this office, and that we had agreed to drop all claims of overtime. His actions 
placed us in a dilemma, and for the time being we delayed ir> sending in our claims. 
With the advent of another postmaster we again took up the matter. He also expressed 
his disapproval of our intention, and so it was that much valuable time was lost before 
we finally decided to send in our claims. But for the opposition of our postmasters 
our claims would have been presented in time. 

Atlanta, Ga. — I was informed I was to put the claim in through the First Assistant 
Postmaster-General, which I did. I received his receipt for the same. I then went 
down in Crawford County, Ga., in the sawmill business (in the backwood) for seven 
years and did not hear any more from my claim until it was put in with others. 



798 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 



CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. 



Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, barred by the 
statute of limitations, called for in Senate resolution, December 18, 1899. 



.18414 



20528 
51027 



18861 



18369 



18026 



19538 



BIRMINGHAM, ALA. 

James D. Bell 



MOBILE, ALA. 



Frank J. Leary 

Edward C. Cato 

Percy W. Beck 

Nathan Jessie 

Charles Lewis 

William H. Larkin 

Josh W. McCloud 

John T. Marshall 

Reuben R. Mims 

Charles H. Nichols 

Thomas W. Payton. . 

James T. Peterson 

Alfreds. Smith 

William H. Schneider. 

Thomas W. Tobin 

Charles H. Williams. . 
Nathaniel Wilson 



$129. 44 



Total. 



MONTGOMERY, ALA. 



William E. Elmore. 
David B. Westcott. 



SELMA, ALA. 

Benjamin M. Russell. 

John A. Russell 

Charles S. Wise 



FORT SMITH, ARK. 



William L. Jackson 

William E. Joshenberger. 
William D. Lunsford 



HOT SPRINGS, ARK. 



Joseph Coffer 

William G. Hilliard. 
Louis L. Smith 



Total. 



LITTLE ROCK, ARK. 



James Belcher 

George M. Farr 

Justin Morgner, widow Daniel 
. Hoeltzel, deceased 



Total. 



PINE BLUFF, ARK. 

Edgar Fletcher 

Ottaway W. Gurley 

De Witt N.Hope 

Arthur B. Knight 

Taylor J. Patilo 

Madison F. Tread well. . . 
Horace A. Williams 



Total. 



134- 65 

2b. 87 
10.81 ! 

7.63 I 
10.81 

2.68 I 
10.81 
10.81 
10.81 [ 
10.81 ! 

7.63 I 
10.81 | 
10.81 ( 
10.81 ! 
10.81 | 

2. 68 I 
10.81 



301. 05 



129. 68 
93.46 



223. 14 



2.27 
3L51 

28.40 



62.18 



82.91 
5.55 
6.19 



94.65 



22.89 
58.37 
45.38 



94-92 
106. 73 



136. 40 



338. 05 



17.74 
84.05 
17.74 
5.15 
5.15 
15.26 
25.15 

170. 24 



20300 
210118 



18425 



19199 



19424 



17980 
19111 



Name. 



FRESNO, CAL. 

Charles L. Harrison. . . 
Henry Johansen 



$221. 28 
8.66 



Total 


229.94 


LOS ANGELES, CAL. 

Ha rr v Angell 

George N. Barnes. 

John Baugarter 

Thomas M. Barron 

Howard B. Beers 

Fred'kR. Brandt 

Charles C. Brower 

William R. Carter 


63.88 
158. 09 
53.42 
141.83 
163. 30 
132. 89 
15. 06 
82.66 
82.66 




68.84 


Dora Edgar, widow of Charles 
E. Gale 


7.63 


Rolla O. Gill 


154. 51 


Charles Hawthorne 

Charles E. Hutchinson 

Peter Marion 

Delos Millsap 

James B . Riddick 

Charles A. Robb 

Orville L. Robertson 

Winf red J . Sanborn 

William A. Shields 

William H. St.nn.rt 


153.48 
6.81 
75.20 
53.42 

149.00 
75.68 

175. 54 
7.84 

106. 66 

121. 13 


Ernest W. Stuart, deceased 


74.53 
154. 51 


John W. Whitely, jr 


106. 47 




138. 33 






Total 


2, 523. 37 






OAKLAND, CAL. 


155. 39 


John W. Hearst 


241. 27 




93.75 




30.32 


Eldon R. Parsons 


247. 40 


Frank H. Pollard 


129. 65 




3.51 




76.53 




54.04 






Total 


1,031.86 




SACRAMENTO, CAL. 

Chester H. Agner 


99.01 


Michael Butler 


99.01 


Lee A. Devine 


38. 36 


George B. Eidred 


99.01 


Thomas Holden, administrator 
Henry B. Humphreys, de- 


52.00 


John W. Toomey 


74.12 


George G. Brentner 


21.03 


Charles B. Wilson 


21.32 






Total 


503. 86 






SAN DIEGO, CAL. 

David Carson, father of William 
Carson, deceased 


148.91 


Joseph E. Coulthurst 


113. 65 


John W. Foote 


7.63 






Total 


270. 19 







ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 799 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc.— Continued. 

Amount. 



No. 



Name. 



SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 



Charles H. Cushman 

Walter J. Harris 

Harry B. Bishop 

William Farrell 

Edward J. Jennings 

' William Laird 

William A. O'Connor 

James E. Mulhare 

George M. Mathews 

Ibusina C. Auker 

Charles S. Baker 

William J . Barry 

James Bowe 

William S. Boushey 

Edward J. Colter 

Amy Ehinger, administratrix 
Edward A. Parker, deceased. . 

Edward D. Finley 

John Hession 

Otto H. Johnson 

Bridget Kinucan, administra- 
trix Michael A. Kinucan, de- 
ceased 

John J . Lynch, executor George 
F. Myles, deceased 

John F. McGeough, adminis- 
trator Thomas vv . McGeough, 
deceased 

George H. McNulty 

John J. Maher 

Elizabeth C. Roche, adminis- 
tratrix Walter E. Roche, de- 
ceased 

Sarah A. Scott, administratrix 
Richard H. O. Weber, de- 
ceased 



Total . 



SAN JOSE, CAL. 



18335 j Charles H. Amidon. 
Fred D. Ashworth.. 



Total. 



STOCKTON, CAL. 



John S. Burres 

John G. Newman. . . 

George G. Poole 

William G. Whiting. 



Total. 



ASPEN, COLO. 

Harry J. Sears 



COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. 



Augustus P. Everett. 

Shesh B. Gamble 

Robert H. Magee 



Total. 



DENVER, COLO. 

John L. Brassee 

Joseph E. Brassee 

Joseph S. Foulke 

John H. Rhinehart 

Joseph Chamberlain. . . 

Frank E. Houts 

Robert B. Forsythe... 
James D. Jordan 



Total. 



$130. 74 

80.86 

9.90 

36.91 

4.54 

9.28 

14.23 

45.17 

9.28 

237. 24 

141. 11 

70.13 

344. 3b 

240. 55 

53.90 

141. 11 
240. 55 
182.53 
412. 00 



240. 79 
106. 74 



222. 67 
79. 66 
60.64 



166. 73 



339. 21 



3, 620. 83 



161. 23 



24.75 
66.62 
40.42 
66.62 



198. 41 



30.31 
28. 93 
53.37 



112. 61 



22.69 
7.43 

67.66 
5.78 

37.95 

40.42 
3.92 

41.66 

227. 51 



157. 31 
3.92 



22.47 



No. 



16969 



18062 



21152 



17957 



18408 
18666 



18753 



Name. 


Amount . 


LEADVILLE, COLO. 

William T. Allen 


$42. 57 




42.57 






Total 


85.14 






PUEBLO COLO. 


61.05 




4.13 




58.42 






Total 


123. 60 






TRINIDAD, COLO. 


89.44 




47.94 


W. S. Phillips, next of kin 

Thomas G. Phillips, deceased. . 

E. Joy Rice 


22.55 

89.44 
17.74 






Total 


267. 11 


BRIDGEPORT, CONN. 

James Kelly, brother Timothy 


87.91 




26.60 






Total 


114.51 






DERBY, CONN. 


220. 46 






HARTFORD, CONN. 


378. 54 




15.47 




60.76 




15.26 




60. 76 




60.76 




20.21 


Thomas F. Daly 


60. 76 


DeWitt C. Graves 


60.76 




60.76 




60.76 




60.76 




60.76 




60.76 




20.21 


John O'Farrell 


60.76 




20.21 




60.76 




60.76 




60.76 




82. 37 


John F. Smith 


60.76 




82.37 


Franklin Taylor 


60.76 




60.76 






Total , 


1, 667. 56 


MERIDEN, CONN. 

Gottlieb A. Baver 

Albert L. Bartlett 

Patrick J. Fitzpatrick 

Patrick J. Ford 


89.37 
89.37 
89.37 
132. 02 




89.37 


Hugh Mallev 


39.60 




89.37 




89.37 






Total 


707. 84 



800 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued- 



1 No. 


Name. 


Amount. 


No. 
19803 


18772 


MIDDLETOWN, CONN. 

William H. Hahn 

John Slavin 

Michael S. Dunn 

James A . Denning 

Total 

NEW BRITAIN, CONN. 

George T. Meade 

Frank A. Anderson 

John P. Rehm 


$28. 87 
79.11 
79.11 
79.11 




266. 20 


16965 
18811 


31. 84 
22.47 
48.49 
32.51 
31.84 








James Whitele3 r 




Total 




167. 15 




NEW HAVEN, CONN. 


17941 


30.52 
99.01 
•63. 12 
21.03 
99.01 
43.23 
43.23 
99.01 
43.23 
9.64 
30.52 
53.45 
43.23 
10.81 
43.23 




John H Cain 




Thomas F. Clark 

Wallace I. Foote 

Joseph J. Higby 

Samuel Pagter 

David L. Bretzfelder 

George A. Butler 




Henry M. Humming^: 




Thomas H. Gill 




Thomas P. Granfield 




William M. Hyde, jr 




Oscar L. Woodruff i 

Total 




732. 27 




NEW LONDON, CONN. 

Cornelius S. Holmes 


18912 


77.39 

290. 57 

77.39 




Joseph F. Kennedy 




Henry C. Winthrop 

Total 




445.35 




NORWALK, CONN. 

John F. Healey 


18884 


4.94 




NORWICH, CONN. 

James M. Kelly 


18346 


99.89 
* 99. 89 
a 74. 19 
a 66. 30 
















Total 




340.27 




SOUTH NORWALK, CONN. 


18874 


16.91 
60.80 
37.43 




William 0. Merritt 




a. Erfid Elynn 




Total 




115. 14 




WILMINGTON, DEL. 

Joseph Duffy, deceased 


16949 


42.94 

67.47 

64.85 

109. 82 


18462 




19056 


Frank P, Pha.la.n .... 




Total 




285. 08 




WASHINGTON, D. C. 


17901 


29.18 
42.43 
30.21 








Andrew Barnes 



Name. 



Washington, d. c— continued. 



Harry S. Barrick 

A rthur J. Beall 

Charles D. Bond 

S. D. Boss 

Henry J. Bradley 

Charles S. Busby 

John D. Butler 

Albert Crew 

Charles A. Champ 

John F. Clark 

Howard Clements 

James W. Coles 

Harry E. Connor 

William S. Crawford 

John W. Curry 

Herman W. Davis 

John E. Dennison 

Henry D. Dickson 

Richard T. Donovan 

Charles S. Douglass 

Webster Downing 

M. P. Eppley 

French L. Floyd 

Arthur Fowler 

George T. Gallagher •_ 

John S. George 

Teresa A. Gozenbauch, widow 
Henry C. Gozenbauch, de- 

William ~F. Gross. . ............ 

John W. Gunning 

William H. Hazzard 

Henrv M. Hewlett 

John T. Hoge 

Alex M. Holmes 

Joseph B. Johnson 

John J. King 

Edward Kines 

William M. Larcomb 

Edgar G. Leapley 

Benjamin F. Martin 

James B. McFadden 

Luther H. Middlekauf 

Arthur A. Monroe 

William F. O'Beirne 

George S. Perrott 

Richard B. Peters 

Clayton C. Osborn 

Charles E. Rittenhouse 

Charles F. Rose 

Joseph Schultz 

Charles W. Sharwood 

George F. Smith 

John H. Smith 

Frank B. Swiggard , 

William D. Tabler , 

Henry A. Tolson 

Robert S. Trimble 

William E. Waggener 

Eugene L. Walter 

Charles Webel 

Jacob A. Weigle 

Emery A. Wilber 

JohnB. Woodfleld 

John W. K. Young 

H. O. St. C. Ambrose 

John S. Bain , 

George L. W. Bain ._. 

James A. Darnall , 

George E. Dorn 

Michael J. Hennessey 

John C. King 

William H. Marshall 

John B. Moses 

Daniel O'Neil 

Dorsey F. Seville 

Lemuel J. Shaw , 

John H. Tarney, deceased 

Joseph Van Fleet 

William H. Oliver 



Amount . 



oln addition to amount reported in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 801 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued . 



No. 



17638 



18847 



17907 



18813 
18813 



18927 
19061 
20749 



17087 



Name. 



Washington, d. c. — continued. 

Charles W. Swingle 

Joseph W. Blumer 

Philip H. Branson 

James W. Carroll 

William A. Clements 

Robert B. Hamilton 

John J. Hill 

Oscar M. Huguely 

Edward B. Maroney 

John T. Sanderson 

Henry G. Tegeler 

Charles L. Ulrich 

Adolph Van Reuth, jr 

William E. Vogelson 

James A. Wormley 

William H. Douglass 

James A. Gordon 

George H. Mai one 

J. William Murphy 

Frank A. Rebstoek 

Rufus B. Stokes 

William S. Van Fleet 

Frederick A. Wilker 

George E. Winkelman 



Amount. 



Total. 



JACKSONVILLE, FLA. 



George H. Mays. . . 
Aaron T. Hopkins. 



Total. 



PENSACOLA, FLA. 

George Jolly 

Charles Le Baron 

William Steele 

Robert C. White, father Beverly 

C. White, deceased 

Thomas G. W. Tuttle 



Total. 



ATLANTA, GA. 

Augustus M. Anderson. 

Yancey Bryant 

JohnH. Elder 

Artway J. Tabb 

George W. White 

J. T. Lynch 

Rufus Adair 

W. H. Simpson 

Thornton Greenwood. . . 

Thomas McDonald 

A. E. Bearden 

H. S. Stanley 

C. B. Ralls...-. 

W. S. Rea 

Robert M. Lockhart 

John T. King 

Herschel M. Upshaw. . . 
John W. Jackson 



Total. 



AUGUSTA, GA. 



Crawford E. Alexander. 
Mark J. Deween 



Total. 



BRUNSWICK, GA. 



20908 j Thomas M. Sellers. 
20897J] George Abbott 

Oliver M. Briggs .. . 

Henry Molding 



$25.41 

1.44 

76.22 

14.76 

14.49 

37.76 

55.62 

70.39 

39.32 

58.71 

17.51 

.41 

41.20 

23.35 

.82 

37.45 

38.11 

14.03 

.61 

22.60 

12.36 

15.45 

1.03 

3.71 



3, 281. 20 



171. 45 
17.74 



189. 19 



64.20 

248. 38 

62.10 

44.76 
50.60 



476. 04 



29.79 
35.05 
70.10 
14.85 
12.85 
24.02 
48.68 

126. 47 
70.39 
64.26 
64.26 
64.26 
64.26 
80.80 

164. 15 
47.03 
80.62 
11.34 



1, 073. 18 



41.48 
187.22 



228. 70 



12.79 
207. 16 
249. 79 
207. 16 



No. 



17792 



20568 



17041 



Name. 



BRUNSWICK, GA.— continued. 



Worth H. Myers . 
Arton F. Pyles.. 



Total. 



COLUMBUS, GA. 



Howard E. Hall 

Minnie Johnston, sister William 

H. Johnston, deceased 

Sandy A. Jones 

JohnH. Parks 

Elbert Wilson 

Robert Lee Reese 



Amount. 



$207. 16 
193. 14 



1, 077. 20 



85.05 
17.39 
75.67 
23.25 
1.24 



Total. 



203.42 



MACON, GA. 



John C. Allen 

Andrew J. Ryals 

William A. Dewberry. 

Charles H. Holley 

Joseph J. Higginson. . 

Lee J. Michael 

Edward Cassidy 

Newton S. Outler 

John W. Kimbrew 



78.28 
178. 17 
170. 62 
178. 17 
220. 81 
200.08 
133. 99 
70.12 
18.36 



Total ! 1,248.60 



SAVANNAH, GA. 

Joseph D. Baughes 

Mac B. Branham 

John D. Campbell 

Shem B. Cooper 

Frank L. Curley 

Peter A. Denegal 

Charles C. Deveaux 

Thomas A. Houlihan. . 

John J. Howlett 

Henry S. Hymes 

Matthew J. Jones 

Albert La Fayette 

Joseph L. Mirault 

John O'Donovan 

Richard C. O'Driscoll. . 

George A. Lord 

Lewis M. Pleasant, jr.. 
Lachland M. Pollard . . 

George F. Tyson 

James P. Murphy 



Total. 



AURORA, ILL. 

JohnT. Colbert.. 

Edward O. Peterson.. 

18664 : Joseph Wulf 

19319 i John Dillenburg 

William Trigg 



Total. 



19625 



16987 



BELLEVILLE, ILL. 

Martin J. Herzler 

John W. Mueller 

Samuel J. Swancutt 

Frederick Weber 



Total. 



BLOOMINGTON, ILL. 

John W. Terry 

Houston P. Fielder 

John N. Pitsch 



Total. 



316. Og 
245.33 
316. 03 
316.03 

71.45 
316. 03 
316. 03 
4.94 
316. 03 
186. 07 
316. 03 
316. 03 

77.23 
316. 03 
287. 37 
316. 03 

17.74 

71.45 
314.74 
277. 73 



4, 714. 35 



40.62 
6.60 

45.56 
102. 51 
124. 13 



319.42 



61.44 
61.44 
90.04 
100.91 



313.83 



37.74 

67.45 

194.24 



299. 43 



S. Rep. 382, 60-1 51 



802 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



CAIRO, ILL. 



Joseph L. Ataell 

James Barrow 

Andrew J. Kline, deceased. 

Frank W . Koehler 

Isaac Walder 

Albert V. Coleman 

Casper L. Sander 



Total. 



CHICAGO, ILL. 



John B . Cotter 

Thomas J. Garrity 

William G. Lozier 

Charles Stevens 

John Britz 

Fred Dippe 

Helen Renich, administratrix 
Emil Renich, deceased 

Helen Stolt, administratrix Jo- 
achim R. Stolt, deceased 

Charles J. Burnman 

John J. Casey 

John Dahl 

OlafM. Dahl { $ ^.°j? 

Bernard J. Ford 

Andrew J . Gowanlock 

Owen E. Murphy, deceased 

Josoph C. Patzke 

Nels P. Rasmussen 

Eugene W. Sullivan 

James Connell 

Edward H. Krapp 

Jacob M. Bonga 

William T. Clayton 

William A. Corning 

Richard Cullen 

John D . Gallivan 

William F. Gray 

Clifton W. Grifflng 

Wesley A. Hammond 

Robert A. Hart 

Will S.Hawkins 

Joseph L. Hazen 

John J. Healy (2) 

John J. Hopper 

Joseph R. Howe 

Joseph R. Lynn, jr 

William F. Mahon 

John J. Martin 

Thomas J. Maroney 

John A. Meeker 

James F. Metcalf 

Edward Mugvain 

Herman A. Naper 

Frederick Nelson 

Swain Nelson, deceased 

Henry E. Buckmaster 

Charles W. Burns 

Abram C. Christian 

Timothy E. Collins 

Michael Conlin 

Stephen Crosse 

John Cummins 

John W. Cunningham, jr 

Lawrence E . Donohue 

William Dunlop 

William A. Edwards 

William Fern 

Joseph Fischer 

George J. Foley 

Charles E. Cook, administrator 
Thomas J. Foley, deceased . .. 

William Gavin 

Edwin R. F. Hart 

George Herzberg 

Patrick J. Hunt 

Olaus Jentoft 

Gustave F. Joucke 



Amount. 



$101. 31 
10.11 
76.19 
12.58 
106. 57 
96.62 
98.26 



501. 64 



1.24 
47.23 
47.23 
2.06 
3.78 
1.37 

1.37 

234 50 
70.96 

257. 70 
40.42 

150. 51 

239. 99 
156.80 

1.85 
45.38 
26.78 

2.49 

2.48 
49.78 

2.06 
73.17 
10.11 
14 43 
14 08 

6.39 
10.52 
49.09 

2.76 
40.21 

3.43 

1.24 
36.69 
14.08 

8.25 

413 

3.04 
179. 91 
121. 54 
.61 
30.89 
78.63 

413 
73.27 
71.41 

8.46 
196. 43 
53.56 

6.19 
50.53 
39. 80 
80.03 

3.09 
24 75 
25.78 
63.12 

9.28 

3.09 

73.13 

1.44 

214 58 

38.14 

209. 72 

134 59 

6.19 



No. \ 



19533 



18054 



18508 
18407 



Name. 



Chicago, ill.— continued. 

John Weidmann, administra- 
tor Joseph Kaiser, deceased. . 

Albert C. Ormsby, deceased 

James Palmer 

Henry R. Ravenot, deceased . . 

William H. Sclundt 

James H. Shurtlefi 

Henry H. Smith 

Jasper T. Stafford, deceased 

Dennis T. Sullivan 

Jeremiah W . Tierney 

Winfield S. Williams 

Edward A . Wilson 

William Winter 

Timothy Falvey, administrator 
John J. Falvey, deceased . 

Edwin C. Hearn 

Michael J. Kennedy 

George V. Levander 

Charles Schoenthaler 

Robert E. Bock 

Charles Boland 

John Badershaw 

George R. Bent 

Joseph P. Buckley 

James J. Keegan 

John W. Kinsley 

Nicholas C. Knerr : 

Louis H. Knodell 

Robert C. Krelle 

Theodore E . Lange 

Henry M. Lauderdale 

Margaretta Leesburg, admin- 
tratrix August Leesburg, de- 
ceased 

Joseph F. Lotz 

Elizabeth Marty, administra- 
trix Emil J. Marty, deceased . . 

Charles E . Morrison 

Patrick O'Mahoney 

Robert W. Owen ; 

August Paaren 

Peter G. Pinter 

Andrew Quaid 

Thomas J. Ryan 

Albert Schreiber 

James F. Slattery 

James Speirs 

John L. Stacker 

Charles L. Tantow 

Nels Turrell 

WiUiam J. F. Utes 

Arie H. Vermeulen 

Charles G. Walgren 

Edward Ward 

Edward W. Warner 

Joseph B . Weil .. 

Charles F. Wright 

Peter O'Leary 

William Beekman 

Frank H. Beers 

William H. Marsh 

Michael Morarity 

George E. Rowe 

Edward J. Fits-gerald 

James H. Gage 

Timothy Culliname 

Mrs.F. C. Merritt, widow F. C. 
Merritt, deceased 

Michael J. Sarsfteld 

Will L. Clifford 

George H. McMunn 

William H. Rickert 

Adolph J. Wilkie 

Jacob P. Winner 

Peter Mc Aniff 

Christian Yeackley 

Thomas H. Lally 

John Burns 

Charles D . Burroughs 

Smith P. Colby 



Amount. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLATMS. 803 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 


Name. 


Amount. 




Chicago, ill. — continued. 

Charles W. Cook 

Dillard W. Dernpsey 


S73. 13 

170. 63 
30.52 
26.60 

135. 09 
42.07 
88.48 

238. 96 
67.29 

183.31 
42.57 
36.69 
40.01 

238. 29 
36.69 




Samuel Goldsmith 

Charles W. Griffith : 












R. P. Hogan 






Myron H. Norton, jr 




Samuel B. Shaw 

Owen Sheridan 






Total 


10, 126. 79 




DANVILLE, ILL. 


18801 


63.94 
63.94 
74.95 
95.57 








William S. Dillon 








Total 




298.40 




DECATUR, ILL. 

LeeS. Hall 


17559 


3.30 
59.59 








Total 




62.89 




EVANSTON, ILL. 

Annie Cunningham, widow 
Jame? Cunningham, deceased . 


17489 


205. 00 

17.12 

226.74 








Total 




449.86 




FBEEPORT, ILL. 

John E . Hogan 


18545 


19. 18 
19. 18 
19.18 

19.18 
9.90 ! 




Henry J. Keller 








Louis Schilling 


20045 






Total 




86.62 




GALESBURG, ILL. 


20359 


661. 86 
166. 19 
111.78 
80.33 
94.92 
57.08 j 




Chris. H. Geisler 








Daniel G. McCarthy 








O. L. Ridgely 




Total 




1, 172. 16 




JACKSONVILLE, ILL. 




18833 


117.20 




William H. Milburn, jr 


49.62 


19604 


Harry Piatt 

Total 

JOLIET, ILL. 

Joseph F. Benson 


122.12 




288.94 


18538 


140.60 
28.33 


19392 


Charles C. Haberer 

Thomas J. Byron 

Michael F. McCarthy i 

Michael R . Smith ' 

Cha rles G. Garrett , 

William CushLng ' 

Elmer F. Edgerlv j 

Total 1 


28.33 
28.33 
28.33 
28.33 
87.86 
268.71 
268.71 


1 


907.53 ] 



20878 



21013 



18882 



18218 
19304 



21017 



18951 



19552 



18837 



16991 



Name. 


Amount. 


KANKAKEE, ILL. 


8103. 58 


Otto Birr 


11.14 




103.58 




103.58 


Ra.nfnrrl M Wright 


103.58 






Total 


425.46 






LASALLE, ILL. 





18576 





3.92 




3.92 




3.92 




3.92 






Total 


15.68 






MATTOON, ILL. 


32.79 




16.91 






Total 


49.70 






MOLINE, ILL. 


57.55 




254.16 


Robert M. BeneU 


93.02 




254.16 






Total 


658.89 






MONMOUTH, ILL. 


24.13 


James Herdeman, father Ralph 


9.90 




16.29 




16.29 






Total 


66.61 






OAKPARK, ILL. 


16.91 




34. 52 




34.52 




34.52 






Total 


120. 47 






OTTAWA, ILL. 


240.10 






PEKIN, ILL. 

Charles W. Edds 


38.27 


Charles F. Holland 


90.72 




33.60 






Total 


162. 59 






PEORIA, ILL. 


74.48 


John W. Schmitt 


74.48 




71.86 




74.48 


William H. Zoller 


74.48 




84.17 


Robert F. Davis 


67.54 




74.60 




65.27 




45.09 




137. 59 




28.04 






Total 


872.08 







804 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 

Name. • Amount. 



No. 



Name. 



QUINCY, ILL. 

Horace Farrar 

Patrick R. Ahern 

Total 

BOCKFORD, ILL. 

W. T. Ferrin 

ROCK ISLAND, ILL. 

Edward Burrill, jr 

Jay E. Elliott 

Total 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. 

John W. Barrett 

Carrie De Frates, administra- 
trix of Edward De Frates 

Hugo Thomas, administrator of 
Albert Kuehn, deceased 

John F. Obrien 

Lawrence J. Seifert 

Gustavus Spies, jr 

John P. Stanley 

Archie Hensel 

Philip H. Hofferkamp 

Alfred Mottar 

Katharine White, administra- 
trix John E. White, deceased. 

John S. Schmitt 

Total 

STERLING, ILL. 

Henry W. Carter 

Robert T. Hill 

Total 

STREATOR, ILL. 

Charles Mackey 

John Riordan : 

George Clay 

James C. Hunter 

Patrick M. McCall 

William Price 

John F. Shoap 

Jeremiah G. Westwood 

Andrew Gilyun 

George Huber 

Total 

WAUKEGAN, ILL. 

Andrew H. Benedict 

Seber H. Burnett 

Fred A. Miltimore 

L. B. Miltimore 

Total 

ELKHART, IND. 

Louis T. Rutter 

Nelson Bressan 

William C. Livengood 

Total 

EVANSVILLE, IND. 

Louis W. Duesner 

Annie M. Balz, administratrix 
of George H. Balz, deceased. . 

Total 



Amount. 



$77. 41 
C3.38 



116. 24 

116. 24 
14.03 

151. 66 
18. .56 
82.09 
2.89 

129. 10 
73.43 

129. 68 
123. 26 



189. 44 
100. 86 



290. 30 



64.97 

121. 15 

192. 73 

42.57 

34.65 

64.92 

53.29 

38.36 

214. 26 

142.15 



969. 05 



55.48 
55.48 
45.38 
50.53 



206. 87 



17.75 
42.15 
41.12 



31.14 
42.20 



140. 79 



301. 13 
153. 66 



1,185.01 



73.34 



No. 



18676 
18949 



17873 



18621 



16967 



2072~6 



16966 



18921 



18658 



FORT WAYNE, IND. 

Thomas J. Shlevey 

George J. Alter 

PaulC. Richter 

William A> Zimmerly 

Total 

GOSHEN, IND. 

Charles W. James 

William E. Miller 

Total 

INDIANAPOLIS, IND. 

William A. Balk 

James E. Cantlon 

John T. Carroll 

Ellis W. Crane 

William Darby 

Edward D. Hume 

John W. McDonald 

Robert H. McGinnis 

James L. Moore 

George W. Reid 

Richard O. Shimer 

John J. Turner 

Charles E. Wagner 

Pat Ward 

John Wren 

Total 

KOKOMO, IND. 

David A. Megrady 

LAFAYETTE, IND. 

Anthony B. Schilling 

LA PORTE, IND. 

Adelbert D. Barnes 

James M. Morse 

John L. Swanson 

Hiram N. Harrison 

George Koenig 

Total 

LOGANSPORT, IND. 

George W. Boerger 

NEW ALBANY, IND. 

JohnE. Mitchell 

Elmer E. Miller 

Harry Shipman 

Montgomery W. Lewis 

Total 

SOUTH BEND, TNT). 

Mahala Amnions, administra 
trix of Albert Ammons, de 
ceased , 

Andrew Chilberg 

Gus A. Clarquist 

FrankT. Grey 

Hiram E. Jackson , 

Leonard Kalmajski 

FredT. Kemble , 

Charles V. Korpal 

Caspar G. Krauser 

Charles W. Krueger 

Thaddeus T. Matlock 

Joseph Mikolajewski 

John W. McGraw 

Hugh F. Farnsey , 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 805 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 



Name. 



18368 



17261 



19984 
19130 
20897 
17261 



20897 



18692 



19302 



17081 
19323 



19128 



17081 



17954 



19125 



18686 
19276 



south bend, iND.— continued. 

William S. Weaver 

John A. Lamb 

Total 

TEKRE HAUTE, IND. 

George M. Dunn 

BURLINGTON, IOWA. 

A. P. Adolphson 

Ed. S. Campbell 

Joseph B . Davis 

Harry E . Drogemyer 

F. W.Haskell 

Arthur J . Holinquist 

C. F. Le Brock 

Frank E. Morgan 

Dennis J. Quinn 

A. H. Swindler 

P. F. Thienes. 

S. L. Tigg 

Isaac Ward 

Daniel C. Young , 

Total 

CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA. 

Martin P. Healey 

John W . Kouba 

Joseph Kouba 

William E. Bixby 

Judson A. Merrill 

John Montillon 

Total 

CLINTON, IOWA. 

William Devine 

Jerry A. Keefe 

Cornelius S. Peterson 

Total 

COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA. 

Fred Johnson 

William D. Nichols 

Charles N. W. Watts 

Benjamin J. Weber 

George Hamilton 

Anthony B. Klein 

Samuel Leonard 

Fred Myers 

Phillip Betz 

F.M. Mithen 

Total 

DAVENPORT, IOWA. 

Sue E. Gardner, administratrix 
of James N. Gardner, deceased 

Edward Griffith 

James H. Farrand 

Daniel E. Keeler 

Edward J. Lawton 

Frank B. Toher 

William O. Meisner , 

Spencer M. Howe 

William J. Orendorff 

Bert S. Tomson 

Total 



Amount. 



$90. 54 
211. 75 



2,111.42 



234. 10 



102. 95 

29.92 

37.02 

125. 01 

65.21 

2.06 

63.31 

221. 40 

135. 82 

98.43 

92.88 

8.25 

174. 66 

301. 72 



1, 458. 64 



108. 94 
2.04 

124. 72 
33.88 
33.88 
14.85 



318. 31 



94.48 
94.48 
94.48 



283. 44 



247. 69 

153. 94 

141. 95 
125.42 

96.94 
68.07 
120. 92 
120. 92 
420. 88 
234. 29 



1,731.02 



29.28 
219. 06 
161. 23 

39.60 

73.67 
167. 07 

90.54 
175. 25 
175.25 

18.15 



1, 149. 10 



No. 



17942 



17750 
18825 



19126 
19303 



18497 



18566 



19781 
18900 



19000 
19305 



20773 
19305 



19496 
19135 



Name. 



DES MOINES, IOWA. 



Henry J. Childress 

John Conoly 

Charles E. Lyon 

Edwin H. Baker 

Samuel L. Mash 

John H. Bachman 

Thomas J. Rogers 

William L. Settlemyer. 



Total. 



DUBUQUE, IOWA. 



Frank F. Spahn 

Herman Ternes 

Thomas Reilly 

Thomas Sweeney 

William H. Wilson.. 

James P. Carter 

Joseph W. Collinson. 
Joseph Margadant . . . 
John C. Murphy 



Total. 



IOWA CITY, IOWA. 



Daniel Barry 

Richard Hennessey . 
Charles A. Smith. . . 



Total. 



KEOKUK, IOWA. 



Hugo Anschutz . . . 
Charles J. Dickie. . 
James R. Green... 

William Long 

Frank J. Smith . . . 

James Ward 

James F. Brerton. 
George Sanderson. 



Total. 



MUSCATINE, IOWA. 



Joseph R. Anson. . . 
George W. Richie. . 

Will A. Appel 

William W. Ewing. 
John O'Brien 



Total. 



OSKALOOSA, IOWA. 



Talbert M.Wells... 
Edmund A. Barnes. 
Thomas Maloney . . . 



Total. 



OTTUMWA, IOWA. 



Charles E. Benson 

James H. Buncutter 

Edward Lowenberg 

John Sheehan 

John H. Stoessel 

J. F. Dings, administrator Geo. 
W. Dings, deceased 



Amount . 



Total . 



$170. 28 

132. 51 

189.85 

10.11 

63.59 

98.07 

58.01 

2.89 



725. 31 



151. 59 
12. 37 

115. 95 
98.72 

125. 01 

142. 99 
47.44 
64.15 
64.97 



823. 19 



166. 48 
188. 85 
215. 14 



570. 47 



19.80 
28.04 
62.70 
28.04 
28.04 
28.04 
44.76 
53. 83 



293. 25 



127. 93 
10.11 
32.37 
161. 76 
170. 34 



502. 51 



256.34 
281. 17 
112. 41 



80.73 
102. 81 

44.76 
207.09 

32.42 

155.22 



623.03 



806 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAI1T CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, efc.— Continued • 



Name. 



SIOUX CITY, IOWA. 

Egbert R. Mousseau 

William H. Coburn 

William A. Lindsay 

Louis W. Palmer 

Francis L. Reddy 

Joseph. M. Tibbitts 

Total -. 

WATERLOO, IOWA. 

George P. Beck 

John P. Von Lackman 

Frank J. Landgrafl 

Charles W. Stillson 

Claude V. Bodell 

William E. Kuhn 

Total 

ABILENE, HANS. 

Alva V. Nutt 

Howard P. Seeds 

Total 

ARKANSAS CITY, KANS. 

John S. Daniels 

Joe T. White 

Total 

ATCHISON, KANS. 

Fred Duehren 

George W. Dunkin 

James Walsh 

Total 

EMPORIA, KANS. 

Charles K. Salsbury 

Walter Birdsell 

Phineas H. Cowan 

Charles J. Beckwith 

Total 

FORT SCOTT, KANS. 

Cyrus F. Chapin 

James C. Cuthbertson 

Catharine S. Firestone, admin- 
istratrix James R. Firestone, 
deceased 

Oscar M. Morse 

Eli Thomas 

Total....- 

HUTCHINSON, KANS. 

Grant W. Prather 

KANSAS CITY, KANS. 

Matthew J. Burke 

James DeGoler 

James M. Gray 

Robert T. Jackson 

Oscar B. Johnson 

Eugene P. Osborne 

Frank M. Sturgeon 

Charles C. Hull 

Total 



$140.78 
45.86 



11.14 
26.60 



82.86 
62.39 
62.39 
20.62 
11.34 
22.68 



262.28 



25.36 
107.54 



132.90 



3.92 
27.94 



31.86 




42.41 
21.32 
96.57 

77.75 



238.05 



83.91 
112.88 



114.05 
114.05 
106.75 



531.64 




No. 



19621 
19321 



19335 



17788 



Name. 



LEAVENWORTH, KANS. 

W. B. Townsend 

Charles M. Fenning 

Charles Ferguson 

Louisa Helbing, administratrix 
of Frank Helbing, deceased. 

Palmer Hotchkiss 

Patrick H. Mullen 

Richard V. O'Connor 

George W. Ulrich 

Total 

NEWTON, KANS. 

John H. Fugate 

OTTAWA, KANS. 

William L. Beeler 

Samuel D. Brown 

Frank Van Schwiack 

Claude I. Holiday 

Josiah W. De Tar 

Total. 

TOPEKA, KANS. 

George A. Yount 

S. A. Cook, widow Virgil A. 

Cook..... 

Oscar R. Molz 

Total 

WELLINGTON, KANS. 

Alezius F. Eichelberger 

George M. Rarey 

Robert Hamilton 

Total 

WICHITA, KANS, 

William Bartrim 

William E. Barlow. 

Harry F. Dean 

Charles G. Lilly 

Ezekiel B. Smith 

Thomas J. Whitaker 

George T. Chouteau 

Carv D. Davis 

JohnT. McDonald 

Edwin B. Walden 

Total 

WINFIELD, KANS. 

WilliamS. Beck 

Thomas C. Cochran 

Daniel W. Salmans 

James H. Vance 

Total 

COVINGTON, KY. 

Frank Scheinhofl 

John L. Thobe , 

Total 

FRANKFORT, KY. 

Edwin L. Banta 

Owen M. Furr 

Henry Davis Harrod 

Benoni Jeffers 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 80 7 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



frankfort, KY.— continued. 

George B. Thompson 

J. Pierce Williams 

J. W . Graham 

Total 

LEXINGTON, KY. 

Andrew J. Fain 

Robert L. Evans 

Thomas J. O'Day 

Total 

LOUISVILLE, KY. 

George W. Evans 

John F. Fossee 

Maggie Fowler (now Pauley), 
administratrix Robert Fow- 
ler, deceased 

M.J. McAuliffe 

James F. Sage 

Total •. 

OWENSBORO, KY. 

William H. Alexander 

Peter Hugger, jr 

Frederick G. Kollenberg 

Felix B. Routon 

Total 

PADUCAH, KY. 

Jonn W. Baynham 

Edward K. Bonds 

Peter Derrington 

Frank Dunn 

Charles A . Grimm 

Charles Holliday 

Lee A. Reynolds 

Joe M. Yarhoro 

Frank P. Earhart 

John W . Moore 

Total 

NEW ORLEANS, LA. 

Patrick J., father of Thomas M. 
Glynn, deceased 

David Glass 

Louise K., administratrix Her- 
mes A. Gerard, deceased 

Antoine Hammer 

Ambrose Kuhn, jr 

William Egan 

John Grivaud 

William II . Flaherty 

James H. Beggs 

Frederick T. Coburn 

John T. Conway 

George J. Cousin 

William F.J. Donnelly 

John L. Dubuc 

Edward H. Harder 

Emile E. Johnson 

Henry Sctonatmann 

Joseph B. Donlon 

JohnT. Hart 

Lawrence H. Johnson 



Amount. 



$128. 45 

7.63 

187. 34 



714.22 



78.87 
52.80 
169. 70 



301. 37 



22.66 
2.68 



26.09 
12.69 
62.67 



126. 79 



47.10 
21.03 
47.10 
35.47 



150. 70 



341. 67 
295. 52 
313. 05 
185. 56 
214. 16 

260. 68 
185. 54 
108. 84 
228. 76 

25.16 



2,158.94 



68.32 
100. 00 

17.42 

41.04 

29.49 

2.68 



52.96 
10.31 
10.31 
61.88 
22.28 
61.88 
10.31 

9.28 
31. 14 
10.31 
44.34 
13.00 

7.63 



Total. 



No. 



17679 



18828 



18449 



18S23 



18574 
17714 



17902 



604. 78 



Name. 



SHREVEPORT, LA. 

Beauregard E. Wagner. 

AUBURN, ME. 



Alfred F. Lamarche 

Charles E. Merrill 

Hammond B. Murdock. 
Erlon J. Mower 



Total. 



BANGOR, ME. 

James E. Dolan 

Charles H. Cullinane.. 

John F. Ford 

William F. Holden... 
Patrick McNamara . . . 
Michael Collins 



Total. 



BATH, ME. 

Edward H. Biggins . 

John W. Jordan 

Frank W. Ramsey. . 



Total . 



PORTLAND, ME. 



William A. Perry 

John T. Flaherty 

George O. D. Soule 

Harry B. Bachelder 

Joseph Winslow 

Jeremiah Callahan 

George R. Kane 

Michael T. Ragan 

Edwin H. Mariner 

Owen C. Murray 

George M, Fernald 

David A. Donovan 

Florence J. McCarthy 

Frank R. Jones 

Eben S. Burns 

Michael H. Cunningham. 

Frank J. Jordan 

William L. Bishop 



Amount. 



Total. 



$1.65 



94.20 



49.29 
237.97 



467.75 



36.91 
63.21 
60.64 
26.19 
37.95 
112. 86 



337. 76 



142.06 
136.90 
142.06 



421.02 



26.87 
18.98 
26.87 
56.08 
24.54 
24.54 
24.54 
56.08 
56.08 
21.44 
56.08 
15.26 
56.08 
15.26 
20.15 
29.50 
45.56 
147.60 



721. 51 



BALTIMORE, MD. 



Alexander H. Allen 34. 17 

Austin E. Arrington 46. 41 

James E. Burke 22. 10 

Frank J. Carpenter 25. 98 

Lama C. Chason 27. 47 

Charles J. Philbrin, administra- 
tor John S. Deegan 39.14 

John P. Dignan 57. 68 

Henry Doeller 57. 68 

Thomas B . Eareckson 57. 68 

Wilbur H. Gorsuch ; 57. 68 

Joseph W. Haupt j'g jjj? 1 } 12. 99 

Frank G. Kiel ';... 57. 68 

John F. King 46. 41 

Alva H. Limhicum ! 43.26 

Rosetta Moran, widow William [ 

F. Moran, deceased 46.41 

Henry J. Owens 27.47 

John J. A. McManus 34.17 

Julius Stengel 25. 98 

William R. Timbs ; I 57.68 



808 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued , 



Name. 



Baltimore, md. — continued. 



Thomas F. Ayler 

Alfreds. Bull 

Walter Dietz 

Conrad A. Faukhanel 

Thomas H. Glanding 

John Gorman 

Frank J. Gries 

Charles A. Isensee 

John H. Mohr 

Charles Nuttendorf, deceased. 
William M. Mueller, deceased. 

Herbert D. Murray 

Joseph E. Mulcahy 

William A. O'Neill 

John E. Ruark 

Charles A. Smith 

Henry W. Stange 

Louis J. Sudsburg 

Charles D . Warfield 

James E. Denny 

William J. Eckel 

Frederick Koehler 

Wilbur W. Jubb 

Horatio Beale 

Ambrose Furst 

William H. Wood ._ 



Total. 



Amount. 



CUMBERLAND, MD. 

Joseph M. Reichart 

FREDERICK. MD. 



James E. Duvall 

Edward M. Eader 

Edmund F. Moberly.. 
Charles H. Roberston. 



Total. 



HAGERSTOWN, MD. 

Martin H. Gruber 

AMESBURT, MASS. 



Everett Collins 

Woodbury F. Frisbee. 

Frank M. Swett 

James H. Morril 



Total. 



BEVERLY, MASS. 



William P. Hanners 

Josiah Woodbury 

Thomas H. O'Shea, administra- 
tor John J. Foley 



Total. 



BOSTON, MASS. 



William H. Allen 

Alfred C. Belcher 

Eugene F. Blossom 

Calvin S. Carter 

Charles E. Chapman... 
Edward F. Coolidge. . . 

Charles Gooding 

Emery C. Hathaway. . . 

John R. Haywood 

William H. Lamphrey. 
William H. Langdon... 

John McCarty 

William S. McGue 



1.65 
1.03 

13.61 

60.22 
8.04 

31.14 
1.24 
3.71 

57.18 

71.07 
2.89 
7.01 
1.24 

66. S2 
1.24 
2.68 
2.06 

37.22 
3.71 

80.60 
4.94 

47.64 

8.87 

.61 

2.89 



1,299.83 



116. 68 



10.78 
10.41 
10.41 
7.86 



39.46 



5.78 



11.39 
11.39 
10.37 
11.39 



44.54 



5.15 
5.15 



14.76 
24.72 
24.72 
31.59 
31.59 
31.59 
30.55 
24.72 
14.76 
38.11 
41.54 
38.11 
38.11 



No. 



Name. 



18643 



boston, mass.— continued. 

John A. McKie 

Fred J. Mezger 

Aus tin C. Sheerin 

William E . Sherman 

Alex. B. Wilson 

Phineas S. Wood 

Henry E. Brockbank 

William T. Kyte 

Dennis Meehan 

George F. Alley 

John J. Coughlin 

Ernest J. Cambridge 

Estate of Patrick J. Daily 

Eonah C. Harris 

William R. Jeffords 

Charles A. Plumrner 

Edward J. McHugh 

Arthur R. Torry, administra- 
tor John H. McLaughlin, de- 
ceased 

George W. Little 

George F. Clarke 

Frederick E. Horr 

Daniel H. Hall. . . , 

James P. Lawless 

Michael J . Gallagher 

Daniel W. F. Kerr 

John Gill, jr 

Andrew F. Lawler 

John F. Dee 

Daniel M. Kimball 

John J. Leahey 

Edward K. Baker 

W. J. Hennessey 

James R. Daly 

Dennis J. Dougherty 

Walter J. Bartlett 

Alva C. Jacobs 

James C. Spencer 

Daniel J. Hagarty 

Thomas J. Hurley 

Jeremiah J . Donoghue 

A. E. Butterfleld 

George H. Cutler ! 

George H. Davis 

James P. Duffy 

Albert H. Williams 

Michael J. Flaherty 

Horace E. Bridden 

Timothy F. Callahan, --{^f^ 

Micheal Dunlavey 

Parron C. Paine 

John H. Williams 

George M. Wolf 

John J. Dowd 

Mark T. Hatch 

Frank I. Fellows 

Charles F. Collins ~. 

John F. Dunton 

Patrick J. Sullivan 

Fred W. Blanchard 

Jeremiah T. O'Leary 

Timothy Quinn 

Horace E. Bridden 

Samuel Otis Bartlett 

Peter J. Brown 

John D. Carey 

Pierce F. Cass 

John Coleman v 

William J . Coveny 

George H. Crockett 

Peter A. Cunningham 

George H. Davis 

William J. Dee 

Theodore C. Dennis i 

Andrew J. Dooley 

Charles F. Duffy 

Michael Dunlavey 



Amount. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 809 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued . 



No. 



Name. 



boston, mass.— continued. 



Joseph F. Eichorn. 
Charles Everbeck. . 
James G. Farrell... 
George A. French. . 
George W. Goodell. 
Frank S. Goodwin. 



Timothy F. Haggerty ;| jr. 

Charles H. Haines ': .,',,. 

Joseph B. Hatch 

Thomas C. Henderson. .'. . 

P. William Hickey 

William R. Hogan 

John J. Loring , 

George F. Low 

George F. Marden 

j William T. May bury 

James J. McCarthy 

Andrew C. McDonald.. 

James L. Mitchell 

John J. Mulhern 

B en j amine F. Nourse 

Charles J. O'Brien 

William H. O'Brien. . . j. . 

John Owen 

Charles H. Packer 

Charles H. Paine ^. 

Alonzo A. Peasley 

John H. Petersen 

Timothy G. Pitman 

Ebenezcr K. Pratt 

Parron C. Paine 

JohnF. Riley 

John F. Roche, jr 

Andrew B. Shattuck 

Charles H. Shaw 

Oliver D. Sherwood 

John J. Sullivan 

Frank Thorp 

Charles C. Topham 

Ivon P. Horton. .' 

Edward J. Houghton 

Peter J. Hutchinson 

Moses W. S. Jackson 

Joseph W . Jenkins 

William T. Kendall 

James A. Littlefield 

Thomas L. Mitchell 

John H. Williams 

George M. Wolff 

Theodore P. B. Clarke 

George H. Cutler 

Thomas F. Dillon 

Herbert N. Hanson 

Frank E. Loomis 

Charles A. Plummer 

John E. Day.^ 

Michael Duffy 

Frank I. Fellows 

Michael J. Gallagher (2)... 

John J. King 

John Nolan, 

Nathan C. Paul 

Henry E. Burton 

Charles H. Cutler 

Florestan Fish 

William Gay 

John C. Home 

John F. Kilfoyle 

Otis K. Tribble 

Francis P. Trumbull 

Warren H. Tucker 

Walter F. Welch 

Walter Whelan 

Andrew B. Williams 

John J. Welch 

Isaac Brockbank 

Charles F. Collins 

James B. Daly 

John F. Dunton 

Charles H. Fox 



Amount. 



39.48 
27.56 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
26.48 
39.14 
39.48 
39.48 
39. 48 
26.78 
24.97 
39.48 
39.48 
15.26 
39.48 
15.26 
15.26 
39.48 
23.71 
26.78 
39. 48 
7.63 
39.48 
39.48 
39. 48 i 
35.45 
28.90 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
23.71 
39.48 
26.78 
15.26 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
32.62 
39.48 
39.48 
32.62 
32.62 
53. 50 
53.56 
15.06 
78.63 
53.56 
53.56 
46.35 
39.80 
46.19 
38.98 
78.63 
64.89 
64.89 
71.42 
71.42 

105. (36 
71.42 

122. 23 
45.79 
39.48 
15.26 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
39.48 
78.63 
64.89 
53.56 
21.86 
37.35 



No. 



Name. 



boston, mass.— continued. 



James H. Holland 

Ezra B. Kenah 

John C. Langdon 

George H. Marden 

Patrick J. Sullivan 

James E. Weeks 

Frank D .Woodbury 

George H. Apple ton 

Charles E . Bassett ':". . . 

John H. Chadboufne 

Charles S. Marsh. 

William F. Murphy. 

Aaron H. Ridley. 

Robert H. Skelly 

Timothy J. Sullivan 

Henry J. Templeton 

John Webber 

James W. O'Brien 

Theodore Prentice 

Everett S. Savory 

Robert J. Taylor, administra- 
tor of Charles J. Taylor 

Simeon E. Campbell 

A. Otis Chamberlain 

Walter Cutler 

Henry C. Hackett 

Edward D. Kirley 

Charles R. Mulhern 

John H. Peters 

Frank H. Silkes 

Asa M. Capen 

Daniel W. Coffill 

Arthur A. Dodge 

Charles E. Gerrold 

Lyman P. Harding 

John F. Hasson 

Patrick H. Lane 

John H. Norton 

Fred R. Sweeney 

J. Sturgis Wright 

Fred. W. Blanchard 

Jeremiah T. O'Leary 

j Timothy Quinn 

I Thomas Cleary 

John R. Dickson 

j John F. Tuckett 

I Joseph P. Conboy 

I William H. Cowdin 

I William H. Dillon 

Thomas N. Dunnican 

Francis X. Flusk 

John S. Lucas, jr 

John B. McGovern 

Mary J. Moore, administratrix 
of Lewis Moore, deceased 

Edward Morrissey 

Patrick J. Mulry 

Elmer E. Shepard 

Edwin R. Jenness 

William H. Lavey 

John H. McEleney 

Hugh McEwen jr 

George A. Pushee 

George M. Stiles 

Ambrose S. Fallon 

William George 

Edwin S. Barrett 

William A. Bowers 

William H. Burnett 

Joseph L. Oilman 

Frank N. Lewis 

S. Herbert Appleton 

S. Willard Babcock 

Horace M. Bartlett 

Michael F. Brennan 

Jonathan B. L. Bartlett 

Frank A. Duffy 

Lewis H. Richardson 

Arthur I. Tavener 

Alvin A. Bullin 



Amount. 



$30. 31 
78.63 
37.35 
78.63 
57.18 
78.63 
53.56 
53.56 
53.56 
53.56 
53.56 
45.57 
53.56 
15.06 
37.29 
78.63 
53.56 
53.12 
71.42 
71.42 

40.42 
78.63 
78.63 
78.63 
53. 56 
15.26 
47.22 
40. 43 
27.01 
62.48 
62.48 
62.48 
62. 48 
62.48 
22. 68 
62.48 
17. 74 
62.48 
62.48 
66.26 
53.56 
53. 56 
78.63 
53.56 
78.63 
21.44 
70. 04. 
70.04 
70. 04 
70. 04 
71.42 
62. 93 

62. 93 
58.50 
70.04 
77. 84 
53.56 
53.56 
37. 35 
15.06 
53.56 
53.56 
71.42 
71.42 
53. 53 
37. 26 
78.69 
53.56 
53.56 
78.63 
53.56 
78. 63 
53.02 
66. 26 
78.63 
66. 2€ 
66.26 
71.42 



810 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



boston, mass.— continued. 

William A. Cleveland 

Charles F. Raymond 

Noah E. Rollins 

Thomas H. Leavey 

James W. Bartholomew 

George Butcher 

Charles G. Clark 

James A. Clasby 

Benjamine R. Cleary 

Michael Dolan, jr 

Frank J. Dunn 

George Goode 

Henry H. Hersey 

Dennis J. Fahey 

Richard Fitzgerald 

John R. Fleming 

William H. Gould 

Timothy Horgan 

Orlando H. Johnson 

William T. King 

Edmund B. Meehan 

Fred. S. McCarthy 

John W. McGaregill 

Alfred Lewis, administrator of 

Phineas Lewis 

James A. Crudden 

Isaac S. Fish 

George A. Gray 

Francis X. Hennessey 

James H. Kelley 

William H. McClare 

Joseph A. McVey 

John S. Norton 

Michael J. Peters 

Charles J. Rhoades 

Frank M. Richardson 

Alpheus A. Robinson 

Daniel J. Rull 

Joseph J. Smith 

David L. White 

William White 

Eugene Whittemore 

John Conboy 

Charles H. Webster 

Charles F. West 

William A. Carter 

Mathew B. Westgate 

John T. Bradlee 

John Curran 

John J. Condon 

Thomas M. Dundon 

James P. Mitchell 

Philip Marchington 

Frank W. Eldredge 

John E. Furfey 

Albert C. Parker 

James H. Peabody 

George M. Saunders 

Cornelius E. Mahoney 

Michael J. Douchue„ 

Henry F. Swett 

Orrin H. Gallagher 

Total 

BROCKTON, MASS. 

William S. Packard 

CLINTON, MASS. 

Fred W. Green .'.. 

David B. Whitcomb 

Total 



Amount. 


No. 


$71.42 


17706 


71.42 




35.70 




71.42 




53.56 




53.'56 


19218 


53.56 




53.56 




15.06 




30.31 




30.31 




53.56 




15.06 




15.06 




53.56 




30.31 


19382 


53.56 




32.17 




53.56 




53.56 




53.56 




63.26 




53.56 




115.01 




32.17 




53.56 




53.56 




32.17 


19219 


15.06 




45.57 




53.56 




53.56 




37.35 




53.56 




66.26 




53.56 




45.57 


, 


53.56 




53.56 




78.63 




53.56 


17692 1 


32.17 


19057 


45.57 




53.56 




47.23 




52.53 




70.73 




70.73 


18684 


30.31 




70.73 




34.02 




70.73 




94.42 




50.81 




53.56 




78.63 




15.06 




51.84 




15.26 




53.56 




75.59 


18729 
17977 


13, 915. 40 


189.85 




215. 31 




185.19 




400.50 



Name. 



FALL EIVEE, MASS. 



John F. Geagan 

Charles A. Fish 

Mary Mahar, administratrix 
Andrew J. Mahar, deceased.. . 

John J. Powers 

James A. Brown 

Patrick J. Luney 

John S. Rourke 

Isaac Taylor 

Pierre R. Picard 



Total. 



FITCHBURG, MASS. 



Frank W. Abbott.. 

Frank J. D wyer 

Eugene Forrest 

i Thomas F. McCann. 

Fred S. Moore 

Albert S. Pierce 

Patrick B. Purtill.. 
Ernest F. Schragle. . 



Total. 



GLOUCESTER, MASS. 



Charles E. Storey 

John J. McDonald 

Fritz E. Oakes 

William R. Caig 

Henry Wilson 

Hiram W. Buffington. 

Walter Adams 

James M. Allen 



Total. 



HAVERHILL, MASS. 



Charles H. Blunt. 
Warren B. Cluff.. 



Total 

HOLYOKE, MASS. 

Herman G. Burkhardt. 

William E. Webster 

Fred S. Whitney 

Eli W. Beach 

Clifford R. Thomas 

William A. Aiken 

Edward B. Thomas 

George W. Gibson 



Total 



HYDE PARK, MASS. 



John A. Jackson . 
Charles G. Sloan. 



Total . 



LAWRENCE, MASS. 



Charles F. Lang 

William A. Summers. 
Jeremiah J. Desmond. 



Total. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 811 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 



18163 
20772 



Name. 



LOWELL, MASS. 



William H. Wood 

John Watson 

John Slack 

Ida Baxter, administratrix of 
Charles Baxter, deceased 



Total. 



LYNN, MASS. 



William H. Annabel . . . 

Louis A. Cann 

Alvin C. Dale 

George T. Estes 

Chauncey M. Farwell . . 

Thomas B. Homan 

Hulbert I. Smith 

George F. Weaver 

Charles A. Whippen. . . 

Melville E. Hale 

Wilbur H. Coolidge 

Franklin A. Pierce 

David H. Bonner 

Cyrus A. Chadwell 

William B. Fuller 

Howard K. Sanderson. 
Edward H. Worthern. 
Herbert H. Newball. . . 



Total. 



MALDEN, MASS. 



Thomas J. Garrity. 
Cornelius D. Leary. 
Frederick G. Jones. 
Timothy E. Powell. 



Total. 



NEW BEDFORD, MASS. 



Arthur D. Swift. 
Frank E. Macey. 



Total. 



NEWTON, MASS. 



John T. Farwell... 
Fred C. Morgan... 
George B. Walker. 

Total 



NORTH ADAMS, MASS. 



18474 , James F. Coughlin. 
Thomas F. Lloyd.. 



Total 

) 

NORTHAMPTON, MASS. 

18175 John W. Hartnett 



PITTSFIELD MASS. 

Maurice E. Callahan 

William J. Joyce 

Thomas F. Duffy 



Total. 



SALEM, MASS. 

17777fi| George W. H. Brown. 

Samuel A. Ferguson.. 

' Charles W. Gardner.. 



Amount. 



$46. 73 
25.16 
19.39 

101.87 



193. 15 



12.79 
56.96 
56.96 
56.96 
56.96 
56.96 
56.96 
19.39 
56.96 
40.21 
40.21 
118. 29 
146. 62 
153. 05 
143. 70 
68.27 
143. 70 
234. 55 



1,519.50 



43.88 
39.60 
38.98 
53.55 



176. 01 



61.34 
105. 61 



166. 95 



34.02 
24. 75 
34.02 



92.79 



36.26 



42.65 



26.60 



95.51 
77.40 
23.30 



196. 21 



45.27 
45.27 
33.88 



No. 



18157 



18937 



19405 



20751 



18160 



19263 
19224 



18901 



17073 



18039 



Name. 



salem, mass.— continued. 



Charles W. Getchell.. 

Alfred P. Jaques 

Israel A. Lee , 

James W. Nichols, jr. 

Arthur I. Pepper 

Richard B. Reed 

John F. Whipple 



Total. 



SPRINGFIELD, MASS. 



Jeremiah G. O'Connor. 

John F. Anthony 

Chester W. Baker 

James K. Kneeland 

Cornelius J. Shine 



Total. 



WALTHAM, MASS. 

Patrick H. Coneannon. . 

William J. Sheridan 

Charles F. Law 

Patrick E. Noonan 

Edward M. Maguire 

William W. Darling 



Total. 



WESTFIELD, MASS. 

James M. Greene 



WINCHESTER, MASS. 

Elsworth S. Whitney 



WORCESTER, MASS. 



Moses Church 

James J. Gavin 

William J. Heffron. . 
Patrick J. McKeon . . 

Augustus Stone 

Jerome M. Stone 

Augustus F. White.. 
Eugene C. Holton. . . 

John W. Bacon 

BenH. Clough 

Thomas H. Doherty. 

John J. Dowd 

Lawrence Manning. . 
Henry F. Mclntyre. . 
Joseph S. O'Connor.. 

John P. O'Hara 

Sidney L. Reed 

Michael J. O'Malley.. 



Amount. 



$33.01 
33.88 
45.27 
15.06 
45.27 
67.77 
45.27 



409.95 



43.10 
58.78 
57.13 
67.51 
67.51 



294.03 



82.73 
30.31 
58.W 
52. 8£ 
73.70 
71.11 



368.90 



37.74 



13.40 



33.30 
94. 03 
77.99 
60.08 
35.08 
77.99 
42.64 
77.70 
77. 99 
77.99 
70.99 
70.86 
77.99 
77.99 
10.93 
37.33 
77.99 
44.14 



Total 1,123.04 



ADRIAN, MICH. 



Frank T. Gaffney.. 
Myron McRoberts . 
James H. Whipple. 



25.77 
53.00 
123.00 



Total 

BATTLE CREEK, MICH. 



John J. Reynolds . 
Lawrence Farley. 
Bernard Jedding. 



201. 77 



30.93 
21.03 
90.54 



Total. 



142.50 



812 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 



18331 



18777 



18023 



18432 



Name. 



BAT CITY, MICH. 



James E. Stevens 

John Kavanagh 

William Marcoux 

John B. Castonguy, deceased. 



Total. 



18338 



DETROIT, MICH. 

Matthew F. G. Donahue 

James F. Rickards \ 49 44 

Addie F. McPherson, heir of 
Augustine Bare deceased 

John J. Crowley, administrator 
of John O'Connor, deceased. . 

F. W. Tenwinkle, son of Henry 
Ten winkle, deceased 

Frank A. Bennette 

Oliver 0. Bloom 

Alexander Brede 

William Campbell 

James J. Carroll 

Frederick W. Clark 

Robert Cowen, jr 

George E. Goellner 

Joseph Greusel 

Charles A. Hall 

George Hathaway 

Charles S. Hughes 

Frank C. Jackson 

1 Charles James, deceased 

Stanislaus Jozenak 

Stephen H. Kelly 

1 Albert Klein 

T. L. O. Lambert 

William Henry Langston 

Frederick G. Ludlow 

William McKerrow 

Alvin D. McPherson 

George W. Martin 

Simon Myers 

Lawrence Nash 

Martin J. O'Donohue 

Peter Paya 

William F. Przybylowski 

Frederick C. Purler 

Eugene Reynolds 

Charles W. Rostowkowski 

Robert D. Shook 

William H. Sheridan 

Joseph A. Troy 

William H. Witherspoon 

Marshall E. Baldwin.... {^"yg 

Thomas D. McDonald 

William A. Barney 

John A. Blair 

Frank Emmons 

Alman J. Houston 

Albert N. Reynolds 

Thomas J. Barney 

Charles R. Hamilton 

Thomas O. Lumsden 

John W. McKunnie 

Frank D. Mack 



Total 

FLINT, MICH. 

Richard E. Coleric 

Charles S. Martin . . . .■ 

John Stafford, brother of N. C. 
Stafford 



Amount. No 



Total. 



$10. 22 

42.06 

5.15 

126. 18 



183. 61 



49.44 
154. 50 



44.29 

240. 26 

107. 12 

107. 81 

65.57 

' 63. 12 

107. 81 

2.06 

87.'81 

27.84 

28.86 

96.82 

51.36 

118. 34 

138. 70 

105. 06 

13S. 70 

44.34 

118. 34 

82.49 

138. 70 

1 87. 81 

225. 50 

269. 99 

63.12 

138. 70 

44.34 

8.04 

138. 70 

4.12 

44.34 

68.12 

138. 70 

44.34 

15. 06 

9.61 

138. 70 

138. 70 

64.20 




18496 



21251 



17984 



18624 



18127 
18734 



20835 



17334 



18578 
18711 



20899 
18578 



20769 



18499 
1920S 



Name. 



20336 



GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. 

John W. Jones 

Herman Warrell 

Total 

IRON MOUNTAIN, MICH. 

Thomas S. Flaherty 

LANSING, MICH. 

Byron H. Willett 

MANISTEE, MICH. 

Joseph Jacobus 

James E. Moran 

Luman Murray 

Thomas P. Steadman 

Alonzo C. Waite 

F. W. Field 

Total 

MUSKEGON, MICH. 

Timothy J. Delanty 

Willis S. Webb...: , 

Total 

PONTIAC, MICH. 

William E. Sprague 

Samuel H. Giles 

Charles A. Weeks 

Total 

SAGINAW (EAST SIDE) , MICH. 

Elizabeth Boertman, adminis 
tratrix of Charles C. Boert 
man 

Robert J. McCormick 

Frank F Miller 

Edward W. Courtney 

William L. Little 

O. J. Sawyer 

Total 

SAGINAW (WEST SIDE), MICH. 

Irving E. Davis 

Harry W. Mosier 

Edward A. Le Febre 

Thomas J. Forestal ..-. 

Total 

DULUTH, MINN. 

Mike Hoppa 

JohnC. Frizell 

Alton B. Heimbach 

John Hennebery 

Murdo S. McKinzie 

Joseph Plutnizky 

Total 

MANKATO, MINN. 

Ernest W. Koetting 



Amount. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ' 813 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc.— Continued. 



No. 



18529 



19445 
19280 



18952 
18529 



19280 



17085 



19273 



18423 
19273 



Name. 



MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 

J . L. Abrams 

Sidney D. Berry 

.Toseph G. Bertrand 

Herbert P. Bates 

E. E. Bickel 

Eugene M. Briggs 

Edward E. Brothers 

E. Butler... 

F. W.Campbell 

E. E. Cass 

Louis H. Clough 

E.L. Coffin 

Thbrna-s ConncJIy 

John T. Dahlstrom 

Frederick C. Emerson 

Abram G. Forland 

Oscar A. Gardner 

George F. Gordon 

John B. Gorman 

John A. Hailing 

L. S. Hamblin 

John G.Hill 

George B. Horton 

James R. Huckins 

Jonas Krafne 

Alfred G. McCord 

Joseph W. Mercer 

F.J.Miller 

William J. Newton 

James S. Noble 

Thomas O'Neill 

John Pederson 

Perry P. Pierce 

Philemon P. Reed 

Thomas O. Upton 

Joseph Warren 

William Watson 

Alexander I. Bissonette. . . 

Theophile L, Beaudette 

Elmer L. Buell 

John Collins 

Guy Hawkins 

David Knobel 

Archie F. Thompson 

Eugene M. Wood 

J.A.Wood 

E.L.Wright... 

Charles L. Abbott 

Albert Ashenden 

Winfleld O. Chase .. 

William D. McMillan 

John O. Williams 

Jasper E. Brown 

John Langan 

Total 

ST. PAUL, MINN. 

Alphonse J. Brennon 

John J. Dillery , ... 

George T. Drake 

Henry C. Garvey, deceased 

Nels Hayden 

John J. Luby 

Lawrence S. Moore 

Henry C. Nichol 

Edward A. Oschner 

Albert J. Rock 

Ernest Schroeer 

Arthur J. Taylor 

John W. Grant 

Henry R. E. Longfleld 

George L. Taft 

Jerry Webber 

Fred C. Kinney 

Nicholas Hendy 

Michael S. Lawless 

Total 



Amount. 



$4.12 
4.12 
2.48 
4.12 
3.32 
4.12 
3.32 
4.12 
4.12 
2.48 
4.12 
4.12 
4.12 
4.12 
3. 32 
3.32 
3.43 
3.32 
4.12 
3.32 
4.12 
2.48 
3.32 
4.12 
4,12 
4.12 
4.12 
3.32 
4.12 
4.12 
2.48 
4.12 
3.32 
4.12 
4.12 
3.32 
4.12 
76.76 
35.47 
27.63 
27.63 
27.63 
107. 81 
84.12 
4.12 
4.12 
4.12 
73.51 



26.40 
106. 60 
11.55 
26.40 



978. 82 



88.11 

202. 57 

8.29 

416.81 

106. 05 

49.71 

2.89 

4.94 

141. 69 

10.11 

39.14 

156.90 

20.00 

60.54 

20.62 

7.22 

1.03 

256.81 

126. 02 



1,719.45 



No. 



18632 



18009 
18534 



18855 



18569 
19040 



18018 
18733 



18071 



18486 
18071 



20707 



Name. 



STILLWATER, MINN. 

Matthew F. Butler 

Edward D. Elliott, jr 

William F. Walsh 

August Hoehne 

Total 

WINONA MINN. 

Rodney Redfleld 

John A. Zaborowski 

Joseph Will 

Total ...... 

MERIDIAN, MISS. 

William S. Harris, jr 

William B. Johnson 

Benjamin J. Nelson 

Thomas H. O'Neil 

Total 

JACKSON, MISS. 

William M. Garland 

Napoleon J. Smith 

William Culbertson 

Total 

VICKSBURG, MISS. 

Lee B. Rogers 

Edward F. McManus 

Total 

KANSAS CITY, MO. 

Barnabas Berry, administrator 
Alva S. Berry, deceased 

Frank Hughes 

Frederic C. Krass 

Monroe Larson : . . . 

Henry A. Waller 

Harry E. Dewey 

Sidney A. Jennings 

Campbell Chapman 

Hugh H.Cole 

William H. English 

William T. Fitton 

Charles T. Freeman 

Edward H. Luckey 

Sebastian A. Maggio 

Daniel M. Pierce 

Dell M.Ralls 

Henry W. Tracy 

Thomas Briody 

James Cannon 

James H. Crews 

Leonard Cree Jackson 

Morton A. Maynard 

Frank M. Meade, administra- 
tor of Richard E. Meade, de- 
ceased 

Andrew J. Nash 

Thomas F. Reilly 

Dell Smith 

Elmer R. Waters 

Eugene J. Wagner 

Burdsey W. Walley 

John P. Robinson 

Total 

NEVADA, MO. 

Levi Cook 

Andrew J. Crigler 

Jacob M. Schatt, deceased 

Total 



Amount. 



8100. 50 
25.59 
93.80 
32.37 



252. 26 



207. 16 
199.98 
273.09 



0.23 



186.29 
156. 43 
186.29 
166. 13 



695. 14 



6.36 
16.82 
23.90 



46.54 



55.38 
40.48 



95.86 



70.75 

35.06 

187.65 

310.63 

262. 78 

70.13 

56.65 

89.96 

61.88 

4.94 

7.63 

60.84 

7.84 

37.53 

8.25 

133. 37 

144.88 

192. 87 

192. 87 

203.98 

88.44 



88.48 
125.60 
135.61 

88.48 
322.05 
192. 87 
137. 77 

64.77 



3,473.04 



2.48 

1.44 

30.86 



34.78 



814 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued 




ST. JOSEPH, MO. 

Charles L. Baker 

Clinton S. Huffington 

William T. Brayles 

Joseph E. Grief 

Robert T. Raney 

Robert T. Raney 

Total 

ST. LOUIS, MO. 

John S. Andrew 

Fred W. Berg 

Gustav A. Betz 

Patrick O. Brown 

Michael Burke 

Thomas Byrnes, administrator 
Thomas J. Byrnes, deceased.. 

Thomas J. Curran 

Henry M. Day 

Cornelius J. Dennehy 

Catharine Grimm, administra- 
trix Gustave A. Grimm, de- 
ceased 

Edward Heyman 

Charles E. Huelsiek 

Samuel L. Hyatt 

George Hunt 

Charlotte Grimm, administra- 
trix Henry F. A. Grim, de- 
ceased 

Gustave R. Klier 

William C. Richardson, admin- 
istrator Charles W. Koestring, 
deceased 

Anthony Meagher. . . 

William H. Miller 

Louis Nortmann 

Leslie P. Norman 

Joseph O'Hearne 

Samuel C. Owens. . . 

John B> Stiften 

George W. Bishop 

John T. Boles 

Arthur E. Cooney 

John J. Curran 

Frank B. Eckert 

Henry F. Koehler 

George Marshall 

Joseph A. Mussman 

Edward C. Pfeifer 

George W. Swarting 

Charles J. Walsh 

Edward Weber 

Frederick H. Wiecher 

Edward J. Chartrand 

William C. Richardson, admin- 
istrator Francis V. Eynatten, 
deceased 

Louis Merz 

Michael E. Whaling 

EdwinF. White 

Louis Marcks 

Louisa M. Wolf, administratrix 
John C. Wolf, deceased 

John W. Pelgen 

Daniel B. Riordan 

James M. M. Stokes 

Henry B. Stottman 

Charles W. Trefrey 

John E. Umbricht 

Henry I. Woods 

Louis Newsham 

Albros Wallblock 

Thomas A. Marshall 

Leon S. Boucher 

George W. Davison 

Frederick A. Dunker 

Charles E. Gereke 

Mary Ikemeier, administratrix 
Stephen J. Ikemeier, deceased. 



$153. 93 
139. 03 
220. 81 
171. 40 
16.35 
173. 81 



875. 33 



96.82 
60.35 
54.24 
19.59 
127.76 

,111.33 
34.44 

196. 43 
20.00 



138. 36 
34.67 

180. 73 
25.06 

188.77 



203. 60 
203. 60 



63.32 
106. 43 
195; 02 

75.88 
183.00 
188.77 
127. 72 

53.50 
142.48 

39.50 
203. 26 
203.26 
142. 48 

40.21 
121.88 

45.96 

25.77 

39.18 
197. 04 

49.44 
121. 88 
280. 10 



101. 63. 
266. 69 
258. 76 
95.04 
187.09 

93.39 

86.52 

52.76 

138. 36 

127. 72 

203. 60 

127. 72 

180. 73 

149. 97 

65.92 

307. 04 

76.32 

125. 14 

75.88 

125. 14 

71.55 



18784 



20275 



20750 



18784 



ST. louis, mo. — continued. 



William H. Kremming 

: Fred A. Janssen 

I Willliam A. Oberlohman 

Frederick J. Schleich 

i August H. Stuermann 

\ John C. Lyons 

Joseph C. Lindsay 

| Leon Walton 

I J. Karmany Smith 

, Joseph Teahan 

! Henry Stege | 

j Joseph Woodruff i 

i Thomas L. Bray...*. i 

Amelia C. Stelzeleni, adminis- : 
tratrix William J. Stelzeleni, j 

deceased j 

Timothy J. Callanhan | 

John T. Kern | 

John C. Whitehead i 

Judson T. Clement i 

Herman Esehe I 

Maurice Keane i 

Fred Kuenstler ! 

Michael J. Nash j 

Patrick O'Keefe j 

G. S. E. Sagehorn \ 

F. W. Weisheyer ! 

Adelina Alis, administratrix of , 

Charles Alis, deceased. J 

Timothy F. Burke 

i Thomas Burke j 

\ John A. BurfEee j 

j Edward G. Buries j 

I August Boette 

I Michael L. Cahill i 

John P. Cummings I 

Ernest L. Gross i 

William J. Gallagher , 

Joseph Huppman .1 i 

James J. Holahan 

Frank N. Jordans j 

Herman Ludwig j 

William MeFadden 

William A. Norris | 

Christopher Roesch 1 

George W. Reitz | 

William A. Ritchie j 

Charles Schackel r j 

Charles J. Souderman 

Charles Wiegand | 

Joseph L. Woodlock i 

Matthew Whitford I 



$91. 61 
30.31 
221. 11 
178.91 
221. 11 
79.66 
208. 75 
205. 10 
138. 36 
189. 51 
138. 02 
239.27 
181.96 



140. 81 

13.47 

369. 39 

180. 94 

110.40 

63.26 

150. 81 

15.26 

60.30 

234. 64 

376. 12 

26.60 

148. 32 
162. 05 
162. 05 
266. 77 

85.84 
138.02 

31.76 

53.83 
138.07 
123. 62 

50.74 
151. 60 

57.73 
120. 17 
138.02 
127.21 
120. 17 
162.05 
137.67 
120. 17 

85.84 
120. 17 

63.32 
162. 05 



Total i 13, 960. 72 



SEDALIA, MO. 



17920 i John Lomasney. 
1 Edwin C. Mason. 

Total 



370. 07 
182. 34 



552. 41 



SPRINGFIELD, MO. 

17791 j Valerius W. Campbell 

, George Townes 

; Darwin F. Johnston 



126. 32 

6.81 

48.71 



Total. 



21186 



BUTTE, MONT. 

Phillip P. Carr 

James A. Coll 

Owen Roberts 

Edward L. Waldrip... 

Royal W. Yoeman 

Frank T. Newberry. . . 
Leyman W. Royce 



88.43 

232. 38 

1.35 

33.20 

27.63 
185.94 

14.03 



Total. 



582. 96 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 815 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



HELENA, MONT. 



H. Frank Adkins 

James Blythe , 

James A. Eslick 

Rudolph J. Johannes 

Anastasia S. O'Connor, widow 

John O'Connor, deceased 

Henry M. Phillips 

Maupin Duff 



Total. 



BEATBICE, NEBE. 



Richard B. Applegat. 
Jacob S. Rutherford. 



Total 

FREMONT, NEBR. 

James F. Green 



GRAND ISLAND, NEBR. 



Benjamin F. Gardner. 

Levi H. Matchett 

William Ivers 



Total. 



HASTINGS, NEBR. 



James D. Campbell. 
Isaac A. Hall 



Total. 



KEARNEY, NEBR. 



William Crawford . 
Amos L. Graham. 



Total 

LINCOLN, NEBR. 



Carleton C. Marlay. 
George O. Hearn. . . 

Arthur D. Craig 

Henry Vollstedt. . . 



Total. 



NEBRASKA CITY, NEBR. 

Wesley H. Doughty 

James E. Mcllreevy 

Ebbie Northcutt 

John L. Patterson 



Total. 



OMAHA, NEBR. 

Emar Castberg 

James Clark 

Samuel E . Collins 

Patrick Cocoran 

Charles H. Creighton.. 

Lewis J. Edwards 

Edward Kelly 

Charles H. King 

George J. Kleffner 

Andrew Noonan 

Edward R. Overall 

Ralph U. Powers 

Calixt Remillard 

William H. Robertson. 

Ira W. Smith 

John M. Stafford 



Amount. 



$189. 44 
105. 38 
264. 01 
168.95 

225. 37 

195. 97 

7.30 



1,156.42 



86.39 
91.65 



178.04 



5.85 
10.52 
69.15 



85.52 



51.70 
51.70 



103. 40 



1.65 
8.46 



10.11 



5.15 

.82 

104.27 

50.84 



161.08 



34.23 
30. 93 
32.37 
32.37 



129.90 



14.02 
21.61 
15.68 
15.26 
23.10 
21.61 
22.20 
21.61 
22.20 
14.02 
104.56 
9.90 
22.20 
15.68 
21.61 
21.61 



No. 



Name. 



Omaha, nebb. — continued. 



19322 Osman N. Birkett 

Daniel C. Brown 

John H. Cunningham. 

I Robert C. Davis 

J Richard E. English... 
i Reuben W. Freeman.. 

Thomas Gurnett 

Peter F. Hanson 

Fred Jorgensen 

Harry L. Lingafelt... 

William Maher 

Thomas C. Parkins. . . 

Andrew Peterson 

James S. Stone 

Alexander Sweeney . . . 

JohnH. Tebbins...... 

John Woodruff 

18798 James Fairfield 

19601 William J. From 



19961 



19452 
19373 



18399 



19139 



18405 



20218 
18405 



Total. 



SOUTH OMAHA, NEBR. 



Martin A. Martin. 
Charles W. Miller. 



Total. 



CONCORD, N. H. 



Fred J. Cole 

William C.White... 

Fred E. Wilkins 

Joseph A. Coty 

Jeremiah D. Foley . . 
James P. Harlow. . . 
Samuel H. Prescott. 
Henry Tucker ...:.. 
Willis K. Wingate.. 
Robert M. Clark 



Total. 



DOVER, N. H. 

Fred E. Roberts 



KEENE, N. H. 



Clinton A. Hyland . 
Frank W. Barker.. 
Frank G. Russell.. 



Total. 



MANCHESTER, N. H. 



John G. Brown 

William E. Dunbar. .. 

Peter A. Farrell 

James Arthur Morse. . 

James Murphy 

William H. Ansell 

Irving L. Campbell. . . 
Hubert M. Chandler. . 

Alba A. DoUoff 

Albin Gustof son 

Clarence D. Palmer . . . 

Charles H. Rowe 

William H. Sullivan.. 

Octavus V. Hill 

Wille B. Sanford 

William K. Stockdale. 

Jules Larivee 

John J. Driscoll 



Amount. 



Total 1, 527. 44 



$189.27 
189. 27 

89.9a 
189. 27 

87.04 
113. 15 

19. 80' 

59.81 
220.58 
179.82 

59.81 
189.27 
189.27 
150. 48 
110.56 

82.91 
220.48 

66.01 
195. 44 



2,989.04 



15.06 
15.06 



30.12 



13.61 

40.42 

11.75 

93.18 

103.68 

122.96 

103.68 

118.00 

93.18 

88.75 



789.25 



85.32 



86.85 

65.59 

109.63 



262.07 



14.60 

41.66 

40.02 

78.17 

40.02 

50.52 

43.10 

77.76 

62.49 

67.24 

3.09 

69.51 

62.91 

12.58 

40.02 

311.67 

353. 13 

158. 95 



816 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 



Name. 



NASHUA, N. H. 

Charles E. Holson 

William D. Mongovan. 

Edwin S. Knight 

Andre E. Brault 

Alfred P. Hayden 

Frank A. McMaster. . . 

Total 



50217 



18409 



19379 



19330 

' ,F. 

18600 



18718 
18902 



18156 



Amount. 



POETSMOUTH, N. H. 

William H. Phinney 

Warrington Moulton 

Ernest S. Johnson 

Amos R. Locke 

Charles E. Lowd 

Mark Noble 

William O. Sides 

Samuel A. Reed 

Taylor Waterhouse 

Total 

ASBUEY PARK, N. J. 

Isaac J. Brown 

Harvey R. Bergen 

Charles Imlay 

Charles S. Warren. 

Total 

ATLANTIC CITY, N. J. 

Michael J. Kelly 

William B. Treat 

William Culligan 

John Harrold, jr 

Nicholas H. Downs 

Total 

BEIDGETON, N. J. 

Henry W. Porch 

Frank E. Laning , 

Andrew Mahr 

Total 

CAMDEN, N. J. 

John C. Goldthrop 

Thomas J. Hambrose , 

John W. Sparks , 

Patrick Whalen 

Cladius E. Bradshaw 

J. Kelly Brown 

J. Howard Butcher 

George W. Campbell 

George Denny 

William H. Dorman 

Walter P. Ellis 

Benjamin S. Grum 

J. Newton Hillman 

William C. Johnson 

J. Howard McCormick 

Charles Parker 

William L. Parker 

Mary J. Rowson, administra- 
trix Moses Rowson, deceased. 

J. Howard Shinn 

F.Walter Toms 

Leonard Sturm 

Total , 



$12. 79 
23.72 
53.30 
35.60 

170. 83 
5.15 



301.39 



71.34 
71.34 
71.34 
178.48 
156.47 
3.09 
176.62 
177.66 
183.57 



1,089.91 



51.36 
127.19 
93.58 

5.78 



277.91 



22.06 
69.59 
57.81 
57.81 
16.33 



223.60 



38.27 
25.66 
51.02 



114.95 



302.59 

115.71 

205.33 

113.07 

207.67 

12.14 

11.34 

5.15 

29.90 

29.90 

41.25 

94.99 

9.90 

6.39 

25.56 

4.54 

11.55 

43.93 

9.49 

48.13 

27.43 



1,355.96 



No. 



18155 



18251 



17488 



17978 



17810 



Name. 



ELIZABETH CITY, N. J- 



Amount. 



Edward F. Burke... 
Michael J. Haggerty. 
James P. McElroy. 
John H. 



Total . 



HOBOKEN, N. J. 

Catharine Hopkins, administra- 
trix Frederick A. Hopkins, 
deceased 



JEESEY CITY, N. J. 

John J. Burns 

John S. Prawl 

Louis Reinhardt 

Thomas E. Wakefield. . . 

Daniel S.Coffey 

Gusta ve Kaiser 

Irving S. Taylor 

George A. Logan 

George V. Newkirk 

Max F. Fackert 

James B. Farrier 

James McGovern 

William H. Peet 

David Sheehan 



Total 

MOEEISTOWN, N. J. 

Robert J. Price 

William E. Beach 

David L. Fox 

Frank M. Headley 

Joseph Pierson 



Total. 



NEWARK, N. J. 

Samuel Allison 

Thomas J. Coffre 

Thomas F. Christie 

Henry Coleman 

James P. Donley. 

William F. Erb 

Thomas A. Fitch 

William J. Foley 

George J. Hahn 

Clement F. Hasel 

George E. Hayes 

J. Fred Hoagland 

Andrew J. Jubert 

Francis B. Kineke 

Joseph Koermaier 

John W. Lynes 

Owen P. Mahon 

John P. Manley 

George McGookin 

Thomas W. Nelan 

Phillip B. Nutzel 

Louis C. Ochler 

Fred P. Rommell 

Lawrence Ryan , 

Lewis A. Sears , 

Christian Stamm 

Frederick G. Stickel 

George Tresch 

Wenzel J. Weiner 

Edward J. White 

Charles J. Wirth, jr 

Frank H. Freeman 

Frederick Keim { S1 °i'o3 

John T. McKenna 



Total 2,776.68 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 817 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. 

Thomas F. Grady 

William H. Hinchman 

William O'Cormell 

Peter N. Wyckofl 

Total 

ORANGE, N. J. 

Stephen Bonnell 

Phillip Drenneman, jr 

Patrick Callahan 

James Conroy 

Phebe Jamison, administratrix 

Joseph A. Jamison, deceased . 

James E. Kelly 

Total 

PATERSON, N. J. 

John J. Kane 

PLAINFIELD, N. J. 

Peter Flynn, jr 

Edward E. Harm 

E. T. Van Winkle 

Total 

TRENTON, N. J. 

William Abbotts 

George U. Brammer 

John J. Campbell, deceased 

Fraley E. Cougle 

Walter L. Cox 

William P. Chatten 

Eugene Higgins 

Joseph Hill 

William Hollins 

Hiram Lennox, jr 

David Levins 

John N. McCann 

Daniel Meginn 

Michael Mulrey 

John Firth 

John R. Gould 

Sumner B. Scudder 

Enoch F. Van Camp 

William H. Atkinson 

James E. Clinton 

Mary Jetter, administratrix 

George Jetter, deceased 

George Burkett 

Total 

ALBANY, N. T. 

Daniel A. Cooney, administra- 
tor Peter J. Quinn 

Edward J. Murphy 

William P. Whine, jr. .%. 

William H. Bum 

John J. Brucker 

Total 

AMSTERDAM, N. Y. 

Anna B. Combs, widow Living- 
ston M. Combs 

Julian A. Godwin 

John Shelly 

George Engle, jr 

Total 



S. Rep. 382, 60-1 52 



Amount. 



$158.99 

150.43 

158.99 

37.50 



505.91 



104.44 
104.44 
104.44 
104. 44 

179. 47 
38.77 



636. 00 



57.96 



40.42 

4.54 

22.89 



67.85 



42.07 
57.54 

152. 76 
38.36 
53.62 
52.59 
13.40 

228. 41 
34.65 

228. 41 
45.58 
53.62 
46.19 

238. 05 
49.71 
11.55 
64.56 
34.65 
21.23 
66.62 

3.92 

144. 25 



1,681.74 



49.17 
86.87 

142.34 
36.91 

105. 75 



421. 04 



18.98 
164. 04 
182. 99 
111. 83 



477. 84 



No. 



18413 



19483 



16945 
19391 



17674 



Name. 



ATJBURN, N. Y. 

Theodore J. Kosters 

Edward N. Hopping 

Total 

BATAVIA, N. Y. 

Edwin J. Benton 

Margaret Buckley, mother 
James E. Buckley, deceased . . 

Lucius F. Rolfe 

William S. Wakeman 

Anthony Hirsch 

Total 

BtNGpAMTON, N. Y. 

George W. McElhone 

David L. Burts 

Jesse Irons 

John E. Morrall 

Charles E. Stebbins 

Edwin Scrafford 

Ludlow R. Hogg 

George W. Moore 

Albert H. Surdam 

JohnC. Volk.^ 

Total 

BROOKLYN, N. Y. 

John S. Allen, jr 

Edwin F. Barker. 

John F. Barr 

Thomas Barrett 

George A. Blackmer 

Jacob Brock 

Henry J. Brown 

Hannah M. Burtis, administra- 
trix Benjamin G. Burtis, de- 
ceased 

Margaret A. Butler, widow of 
Frank Butler, deceased 

Thomas B. Butler 

John L. Cain 

Charles Chapman 

William B. Davenport, admin- 
istrator Thomas Clark 

Peter J. Cleary 

Michael Collins 

Joseph F. CoDlin, jr 

James Cunningham 

Joseph I. Donohue 

Edward J. Donohue 

Joseph Dowd 

James J. Eggo 

Edward Farrel 

Karl R. Fosberg 

Edward J. Francis 

Henry J. Fritch 

Charles J. Graham 

Herman A. F. Henke 

Richard C. Hollahan 

John J. Hyland 

Warren H. Jacobs 

Albert E. James 

Thomas A. Kelly 

EdH. Kirby 

Frank F. Krey 

Andrew J. Liebenau 

Thomas P. Longking. 

James M. McArdle 

Edward McCormack 

Edward W. McFadden 

William F. Mclntyre 

Thomas C. McMahon 

William A. McKenzie 



Amount. 



$124. 60 
5.78 



130. 38 



33.82 

37.95 

4.33 

106. 48 

56.66 



239. 19 



121. 53 

202. 41 

7.63 

116. 47 

51.64 

59.69 

20.21 

25.36 

13.20 

13.20 



631. 34 



36.94 
124. 63 
359. 47 

76.15 
142.82 
262. 30 

15.26 



142. 82 

281. 20 
142.82 
142.82 

9.28 

150. 44 

108. 92 

54.58 

4.54 

139. 54 

54.58 

93.67 

65.73 

326. 56 

103. 69 

137. 40 

18.88 

5.15 

54.58 

4.13 

24.75 

9.28 

227. 21 
46.41 

146.94 
134.56 

12.37 
444. 27 
142.82 
164.92 
125. 63 

54.58 
142.82 

94.76 

18.20 



818 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



Brooklyn, n. Y.— continued. 

Mary A. Madden, administra- 
trix Dermott M. Madden, de- 
ceased 

Clinton N. McGuire 

George L. Marsh 

William L. Menus 

Edward J. Milde 

Charles W. Morton 

George W. Naylor 

Patrick O'Gorman 

John O' Grady 

Florence Parrett, widow Frank 
Parrett, deceased 

Napoleon J. Plumb 

Edward B. Powell 

Joseph J. Price 

Ralph E. Price 

Daniel J. Reardon 

Joseph J. Rigney 

Rosa Rode, administratrix 
Joseph H. Rode, deceased 

Frank P. Roper 

Louis D. Ryno 

Francis E. Savage 

Frederick W. Scherrer, admin- 
istrator Frank J. Scherrer 

Julia Schrieber, administratrix 
Charles Schrieber, deceased. . . 

Samuel Shannon 

Nicholas J. Shields 

William E. Sloan 

George W. Smith 

Thomas E. Smith 

George C. Stadtler 

George Stoflel 

Harry Stout 

August T. Struller 

Wiley C. Thomas 

William E. Thomas 

John Tynan 

Rudolph Vanderwagg 

William H. Wall 

Walter J. Walsh 

William A. Walsh 

William F. Walsh 

William R. West 

Harry A. Wille 

Alex. Zundt 

James J. Breslin 

Hugo Guth 

Robert F. Houghton 

Robert S. Miller 

Thomas F. Keegan 

William D. Reiber 

Edward Thomas 

John S. Whistance 

Emily G. Dyas, widow of Sam- 
uel Dyas 

Francis A. Morris 



Amount. 



8136. 25 
6.19 
112. 69 
4 54 
132. 96 
90.30 
54.58 
37.95 
103. 69 

15.47 
15.11 
47.03 
6.19 
29.53 
54.58 
355.35 

106. 58 

9.28 

142.82 

121. 88. 

145. 64 

15.26 
9.28 
7.01 
4.54 
54.58 

107. 12 

100. 60 
11.15 

142.82 
75.54 

142.82 
54.58 
36.94 
15.47 

146. 94 

142.82 
15.47 

121. 51 
34.48 
98.53 

359. 47 
23.10 
21.65 
23.10 
6.19 
15.47 
84.12 

159. 65 
71.46 

114. 33 
314.24 



Total t 8,647.67 



BUFFALO, N. Y. 

-iugusta A.Strasser. administra- 
trix Henry H. Batz, deceased. 

Bridget T. Brandon, adminis- 
tratrix James T. Brandon, 
deceased 

John F. Collins 

John S. McShane 

Louis F. Balthasar 

Cyrennes M. Brown 

Henry Burber 

John F. Collins 

Owen McEneny 

Lewis J. O'Connor 

Hiram Voesseller 

Michael G. McLaughlin 

Timothy W. Mahoney 

Henry J. Shipman 



50.83 



63.17 
46.69 
16.09 
81.03 
53.90 

2.68 
84.12 
64.25 
55.91 

2.89 
25.41 
131. 12 
22.68 



21173 



19716 



18412 



16996 
18314 
19337 



18398 



20509 



18756 



18587 
19343 



18376 



18411 
18677 



Name. 



buffalo, n. y. — continued. 

James W. Wharton 

George Clark 

Total 

CANANDAIGUA, N. Y. 

Frank H. Eighmy 

Charles J. Farnum 

Total 

COENING, N. Y. 

John J. Clancy, administrator 
of Thomas M. Clancy, de- 
ceased 

[CORTLAND, N. Y. 

Arthur C. Upson 

ELMIRA, N. Y. 

Frank C. Willison 

Louis D. Caldwell 

John McCarthy 

Total 

FLUSHING, N. Y. 

Prentiss B. Fowler 

William F. Stevenson 

Total 

GENEVA, N. Y. 

John Dennison 

Frank C. Fox, brother Harry 

E. Fox, deceased 

Herbert C. Meade 

Henry K. Winnie 

William D. Wertman 

Total 

GLENS FALLS, N. Y. 

Timothy D. Downey 

Napoleon L. Lee 

Dennis Lynch 

Edgar M. Monte 

Charles H. Clark .'... 

Frank C. Martin 

Total 

HORNELLSVILLE, N. Y. 

William A. Dugan 

JohnF. Fallon 

James Mahar . . 9 



ITHACA, N. Y. 

Louis Coryell 

Willis Hausner 

Edwin T. Heustis 

John Johnson 

William R. Pearson 

William J. Pringle 

Owen Toner, administrator 

John Toner, deceased 

Henry B. Illston 

Total 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 819 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



JAMESTOWN, N. Y. 

Walter B. Frink 

John R. Moyinhan 

Frederick A. Saxon, jr 

Total 

LITTLEFALLS, N. T. 

Silas N. Baker 

LOCKPORT, N. Y. 

Frank A. Fox 

De Witt C. Graham 

Total 

LONG ISLAND CITY, N. Y. 

Thomas McNamara 

Frank E. McBennett 

Charles E. Masterson 

George P. O'Hara 

Martin Judge, executor Julia 
A. Kelly, administratrix, de- 
ceased, David A. Kelly, de- 
ceased 

John Frend 

Arthur E. McDonald 

Total 

NEWBURGH, N. Y. 

Luke Lloyd 

Frederick Reek 

Henry Van Benschoten 

James A. Cantlin 

Thomas J. Hayes 

Chester F. Thayer 

Robert McNair 

Total ^ 

NEW YORK, N. Y. 

Patrick J. Carey 

William L. Golden 

George J. Woelpper 

George Bender j $ |jj- ^ 

John A. Burnett 

Edward A. Clark | $1 ^- ™ 

John Dalton 

John L. Dennis 

Hugh L. Donnelly 

Edwin L. Edgerly 

Edward V. Reedy, deceased 

John W. Suhre 

Michael T. Ward 

Harry P. Cummings 

Sidney Simmons, deceased 

James Dwyer 

Benjamin Eckstein 

James Hayes 

Henry J. Howe 

Max Levy 

John E. Maxwell 

Thomas F. Monahan 

John Neelsen, deceased 

William E . Peacock 

Frederick P. Price 

John Tobias, administrator 
Jacob Tobias, deceased 

Bernard Carlin 

Joseph F. Buchanan 

Aurelio B. Cavo 

James Donovan 

Elizabeth McCue, administra- 
trix John McCue, deceased 



Amount. 



$37. 74 

6.39 

50.33 



94.46 



67.76 



40.31 
31.55 



161. 73 

152. 92 

47.78 

16.09 



150. 92 

7.43 

226. 15 



763. 02 



142.35 
172. 27 
261. 13 
96.07 
96.07 
96.07 
98.13 



961. 99 



56.65 
17.94 
21.86 

63.74 

45.58 

172. 35 

34.02 

212. 52 

6.18 

34.02 

4.42 

6.18 

62.15 

5.57 

8.04 

93.87 

37.12 

75.91 

69.31 

7.01 

56.65 

20.00 

14.44 

20.15 

28.15 

21.00 
100. 94 
20.08 
20.99 
26.88 

1.37 



No. 



Name. 



new yoek, N. Y.— continued. 



Bartholomew J. Madden 

John W. Merkel 

William Noe 

Edward F. Scott 

Catharine Meighan, adminis- 
tratrix Peter H. Biecker, de- 
ceased 

William L. Hendy 

Charles W. Chandler 

George W. Waterman 

John H. Abbott 

John M. J. Addi 

Gus A. Wambach 

Robert B. Ward 

Philip M. Weiman 

Jacob C. Weingarth 

Albert A. Weitzel 

Stephen B. Wheeler 

William Wick 

Charles J. Wiley 

John C. Williams 

Cornelius Wood 

Henry A. Wood 

Francis J. Woods 

Joseph Wright 

Michael J. Curran '. 

i Patrick J. Gaynor { $ ^ g® 

John Heckmann 

John L. Roscoe 

William F. Phillips.. 

Charles A. Sickles 

I John Skerrett 

j Matthew Smyth 

George E. Stanton 

! Albert Stark. 

j George W. Stevens , 

Alonzo Stivers 

George Stock 

Florence J. Sullivan 

Charles Sutten 

Charles C. Terhune 

Andrew J. F. Thiel 

Wallace F. Toole 

James W. Urell | 8 ^' || 

William A. Van Tassel 

Louis Wagner 

Clifford Waldo 

John W.Walsh 

Peter Walsh 

William J. Ahrens , 

John P. Allen 

John H. Apman 

William Arnold 

Dexter B. Bailey 

Benjamin Baer 

Harry A. Bartels 

Michael Bau 

James E . Bennett 

William J. Boettger 

William T. Brady 

Albert Brocker , 

William B. Beiling 

Henry Bundstein , 

George J. Burnhauser 

James Campora 

Bridget C. Carroll, com. of 
Thomas J. Conroy, insane 

John Casey, No. 1 

John S. Catherwood 

James A. H. Cavanagh 

Michael F. Chrystal 

Charles E. Coffeyn 

Andrew F. Collins , 

Edward J. Collins , 

Julia T. McGrath, administra- 
trix of Patrick H. Collins 

Salvadore Colombo 

John Conlogue 

Nathan Cooper 



Amount. 



$26. 78 
24.30 
10.22 
21.55 



39.78 
49.44 
37.76 

222. 82 
28.15 
12.37 

106. 43 
8.25 
26.74 

109. 76 
15.47 
14.44 
19.23 
8.25 
4.13 
22.32 

120. 85 
28.15 
79. 49 
53.90 

67.63 

18.56 
120.85 
86.18 
16.91 
28.15 
27.01 
70.91 
131.84 
120. 85 
28.15 
13.40 
37.33 
12.37 
4.13 
28.15 
120.85 

66.60 

110. 21 
28.15 
5.15 
39.82 
5.15 
28.15 
86.87 
41.04 
28.15 

126.36 

106.33 
16.91 
23.80 
27.43 
31.95 
33.65 
18.56 
12.37 

101.63 
12.37 
15.00 

243.53 
30.90 
12.37 
22.32 
16.91 
20.62 

120.85 
20.62 

154.84 
120. 85 
28.15 
23.45 



820 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



i No. 



i?039 



Name. 



new yokk, n. Y.— continued. 

Charles I. Cornell 

Michael J. Cosgrove 

William J. Cowell 

John Cross 

Joseph Crozier 

Maggie Curran, administratrix 

James F. Curran 

Martin Clune 

John C. Damm 

Herman E. Davidson 

Willam Deckert 

Andrew J. Delaney 

John L. Dempsey 

Daniel J. Dewitt 

John J. Dobbins 

Arthur Donnelly 

Jeremiah J. Donovan, father 

Frank J. Donovan 

Francis X. Donovan 

James Donovan 

Laughlin H. Dooley 

Abraham S. Doremus 

William J. Douglass 

Peter J. Dowd 

Henry Faeth 

Spencer Field 

William V. Fruhan 

John J. Fitzgerald 

William J. Fogarty , No. 1 

Edward J. Foley 

Terence M. Foley 

John W. Foster, deceased 

Augustus S. Gaylor 

Fred F. Gegenheimer 

J. Charles Glimm 

John F. Graham 

Charles H. Granel 

Charles F. Grange 

William H. Haigh 

David S. Hailer 

Frank E. Halleck 

Edward Hanlon 

Annie Hansen, widow Henry 

Hansen 

Daniel J. Harrington 

Michael E. Harris 

Michael F. Hart : 

John F. Hassaw 

William F. Hauley 

Edward Hayes 

Moses Hecht 

Charles A. Heywood 

Joseph Hirschf eld 

Fred A. Hoelzer 

Benjamin F. Holland 

James Hyland 

Martin M. Irwin 

Mark Isaacs 

George W. James : 

Charles T. Johnson 

Marie E. Johnston, widow John 

Johnston, deceased 

Daniel S. Kaskell 

George F. Keane 

Charles M. Keller 

Frank Kenney 

John J. Keifer 

Charles F. King 

Jacob Knoebel 

George Krahe, jr 

Thomas J. Kiernan 

Tobias Lake 

James W. Lally 

James H. Lent 

Hugh J. Leonard 

Richard Lloyd 

Adolph H. Langhans 

Robert A. MacDonald 

John K. Macomber 

John S. Mahon 

John F. Mahoney 



$6.19. 
70.73 
7.22 
69.31 
10.31 j 

28.15 
35.84 
6.19 ! 

120. 85 
1.65 

162.39 ! 
99.87 
10.73 i 
28. 15 I 
10.31 j 

28.74 
106.33 

40.85 

10.31 

48.51 

36.39 

27.27 
106.33 

45. 66 
3.30 

47.72 

33.75 
2.06 

28.15 

64.89 

28.15 
120. 85 

42.28 

22.65 
8.25 

24.75 
100. 94 

18.56 
120. 85 

48. 06< 

100. 84 
41.25 
16.91 
20.62 
10. 11 
4.42 
57.43 
53. 00 
15.47 
9.49 
15. 47 , 
28. 15 ! 
78.97 I 

120.85 

10.11 ! 
28. 15 
28.15 

126.35 

120.85.: 

140.76 

12.37 

64.10 

27.42 

28. 15 

10.31 | 

100. 84 

4.13 

34.42 

28.12 I 

103.69 ; 

115.02 !j 
292.18 ' 
181.97 
20.35 
212. 18 
28. 15 
16.91 I 



19308 
19038 



new yoek, N. y.— continued, 

John J. Mahoney, No. 1 

John J. Mahoney No. 2 

William J. Malloy 

James Maloney 

Patrick T. Maloney 

JohnC. F. Maloy 

William Matthews 

William Mauck , 

Charles Maudelbaum 

Timothy McAuliff 

John McCarron, administrator 
Peter McCarron 

Charles F. McCarthy, No. 1 

Michael H. McCarthy 

William McCarthy 

Joseph F. McCormack 

Elizabeth McCue, administra- 
trix John McCue 

James McKenzie 

James McVey , , 

Mary Monahan, administratrix 
John F. Monahan , 

Richard M. Mooney 

Charles H. Moser 

Thomas J. Murray 

Richard F. O'Brien 

John. C. O'Connor 

3. F. O'Leary 

Patrick H. O'Neil 

Merwin J. Page 

John O. Palmquist 

George L. Pichard 

Thomas C. Place 

Joseph Piatt 

George Rehm 

Joseph M. Reid 

Henry G. Riehl 

William Roberts 

Thomas Roden 

M. L. Root, widow Charles F. 
Root 

Richard F. Rosamond 

Edmund Rothschild 

Joseph J. Rowe 

John Ryan, No. 1 

Charles Ryan 

HughC. Ryder 

Charles Richter 

Isaac J. Rosenthal 

James M. Sarles 

Thomas F. Scanlon 

Thomas J. Cronin 

Henry M. Beck 

Joseph A. Langan 

Lawrence L. Davids, deceased. 

William J. Ahrens 

JohnH. Apman 

John J. Keifer 

Charles Frederick King . . .-. 

William Arnold 

John J. Babington 

Dexter B . Bailey 

Thomas J. Barragray 

Harry A. Bartels 

Michael Bau 

Adolph Bleibtree 

Hugh Cameron 

John Casey 

E. P.J.Clark :. 

Andrew F. Collins 

Salvadore Colombo 

Joseph F. Cone 

John Conlogue 

John A . Conner 

Charles W. Conway 

James Cosgrove 

Maggie Curran, administratrix 
of James F. Curran, deceased. 

John Dal ton 

J oseph F. Daubert 

Herman E. Davison 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 821 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



Amount. 



new yoek, N. y.— continued. 



Michael J. Deininger $4. 46 

John J. Dobbin 4.46 

Henry Doherty 4. 46 

Arthur Donelly 47. 11 

William C. Donnelly 27.01 

Francis X. Donovan 8. 93 

Jeremiah Donovan, father of 

Frank J. Donovan, deceased. . 4. 46 

Jacob Knoebel 2. 68 

Thomas B. Lacey 6. 81 

CM. Larkin 2.68 

William McCarthy 4. 46 

James McKenzie 20. 94 

Andrew S. McNichol 4. 46 

John J. Mahoney, No. 1 4. 46 

George W. Moncrief I 4. 46 

Richard M. Mooney . . •. : 4. 46 

Charles H. Moser i 4. 46 

William Nolan ! 4. 46 

James T. O'Donnell j 4.46 

Washington I. Ogden I 4. 46 

George L. Pitchard j 4. 46 

John Pope 4. 46 

John Power I 4. 46 

Thomas Reilly | 4.33 

H. G. Riehl .' I 25.06 

William Roberts 4. 46 

Thomas Roden 4. 46 

Mary L. Root, widow of Charles 

F. Root, deceased 4. 46 

Richard F. Rosamond 4. 46 

Mary A. Ryan, administratrix 

John Ryan, No. 1, deceased. . . 8. 93 

Hugh C. Ryder 4. 46 

Charles H. Skill 4. 46 

John B.Smith 4.46 

Thomas J. Smith \ 114. 57 

Ed. F. Smith ] 1.10 

William J. Douglas 4.46 

Peter J. Dowd ] 4.46 

William D. Dubois ! 203.60 

Edward W. Ernst ■■ 4.46 

Henry Faeth j 4. 46 

Rudolph Fisher 6.52 

Samuel N. Fitch ! 121.20 

William J. Fogarty ■ 4. 46 

Augustus S. Gaylor 4. 46 

Fred F. Gegenheimer \ 4. 46 

Dennis J. Glenny \ 4. 46 

William V. Fruhan I 3. 59 

Frank E. Guy j 15. 79 

JohnE. Hall ' 83.14 

Michael F. Hart i 3.59 

Cornelius J. Healey 8. 93 

William A. Henry 4. 46 

John J. Holihan i 10.73 

Francis Hashagan • 11. 06 

Joseph E. F. Hughson i 92.91 

John J. Hunter 16. 22 

Martin M. Irwin 4. 46 

William W. Janicke 4. 46 

Charles T. Johnson 4.46 

Marie E. Johnson, administra- ! 

trix John Johnson, deceased . . j 8. 93 

Solomon Joseph ; 95. 45 

Thomas Keating 7. 22 

Patrick F. Kelly 1. 37 

Thomas F. A. Smith 4.46 

John J. Springott [ 25. 06 

George W. Stevens | 4. 46 

George Stock | 4. 46 

Florence J. Sullivan 4. 46 

Charles Sutten 3. 59 

Andrew J. F. Thiel 4.46 

James L. Turner J 4. 46 

John Vornoff ! 4.46 

Peter Walsh i 4. 46 

Albert A. Wetzel 2. 68 

Stephen B. Wheeler 4. 46 

Richard C. White 20. 25 

William Wick 4. 46 



No. 



Name. 



19151 



19928 



19281 
19480 



19186 



18189 



17799 



18403 
19287 



18215 



new yoek, N. y.— continued. 

Wilbert G. Wiedemann 

David W. Williams 

Francis J. Woods ^ 

Jacob Zann 

James A. Wood 

John M. Zunkley . 

Christian Schilling 

Abraham L. Cox 

James McGill 

Cornelius J. Mai one 

Emanuel C. Percia 

Adam Smyth 

Matthew J. Walsh 

Mary Hogan, widow of Corne- 
lius Hogan, deceased 

Jere F. Donovan 

John J. Collier 

Michael J. Cosgrove 

James A. McAree 

Total 

NORWICH, N. Y. 

Henry M. Brown, father of 
Mathew R Brown, deceased. 

Luzerne N. Green 

Francis W. Hynes 

Total 

OGDENSBURG, N. Y. 

George A. Amo 

George H. Dessert 

Total 

OLEAN, N. Y. 

William S. Norton 

John Collins 

John W. Houghton 

George Lampack 

John M. Larkin 

Total 

ONEIDA, N. Y. 

George Keenan 

ONEONTA, N. Y. 

George E. Bond 

Michael J. Hickey 

Charles W. Southworth 

John W. Telford 

Total 

OSWEGO, N. Y. 

Bartholomew Cheney 

George E. Ketchum. 

George W. Ketchum 

Edward J. Kiley 

Total 

POTJGHELEEPSIE, N. Y. 

Ulysses D. Caulkins 

William J. Wolff, jr 

Total 

ROCHESTER, N. Y. 

James A. Burns - 

Ellen B. Dodge, widow of 
Frank H Dodge, deceased. . . 



Amount. 



$4.46 

4.46 

446 

8.93 

1.24 

.61 

.69 

2.75 

12.17 

101. 27 

6.39 

129.44 

137. 67 

103.09 
23.33 
47.28 
71.42 
34.94 



13,700.83 



26.60 
5.15 
16.71 



48.36 



87.57 
73.26 



160.83 



13.40 
56.39 
46.19 
41.66 
27.84 



185.48 



30.31 



5.15 
165 
2.68 
1.65 



11.13 



202. 12 
202. 12 
50.53 
192.12 



646. 89 



35.97 
45.38 



81.35 



36.66 
162.39 



822 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



Rochester, n. y. — continued. 

William J. Martin 

Marion A. Scranton, widow and 
administratrix of Frank E. 
Scranton, deceased 

Charles H. Baker 

Frank M. Copeland 

Michael J. Fitzgerald 

George W. Martin 

John A. Schwab 

William G. Oliver... 

H. Wright Brown 

Williams. Bradt 

John H. Coughlin 

Mary Matilda Evans, adminis- 
tratrix Thomas A. Evans, de- 
ceased 

Francis C. Hysner, administra- 
trix John H. . Hysner, de- 
ceased 

Michael J. Hyland |*^| ; ^ 

Edward Heller 

Matthew S. Hodgson 

William H. Jenkinson 

B. F. Kelly 

N. G. Lovelace 

George W. Matthews 

M. J. McLaughlin 

William O'Brien 

Joseph P. Shied 

Jacob C. Suter 

Samuel Whiting > . . 

Michael P. Brennan 

Emil Eaton 

William M. Geraghty 

Edward B. Grifon 

Frank D. Kehoe 

Frank E. McFarland 

De Witt C. Skinner , 

John J. Sutton 

Frank A. Van Vechten 

Joshua Sears Wooden 

Wallace P. Couch , 

Thomas S. Gosnell 

Oliver S. Johnson 

James A. Judson 

William J. Kammer 

Martin E'. Staub 

Total 

ROME, N. Y. 

Owen D. Hagerty 

SARATOGA SPRINGS. N. Y. 

Frank P. Kelly. 

Willard Shaul 

Albert W. Brown 

Martin T. Crooks 

William H. Daughtery 

John Furey 

Guy E. Pierson 

William Cox 

WaldronH. Eddy , 

W. H. Hodges 

William J. Green 

James McMahon , 

Total 

SCHENECTADY, N. Y. 

Michael Carroll , 

Frank Nehring 

Dennis Caine 

David R. Moore 

Total , 



Amount. 



$165. 34 



81.72 
1.10 

98.08 
143. 13 

90.00 

83.27 
230.23 
124.63 
155.53 

55.69 



131.50 



77.93 
173.94 

127.38 
31.24 
26.44 
69.18 
47.72 
9.28 
10.11 
9.28 
47.83 
73.13 
53.16 
47.72 

170.63 
11.75 
62.12 

144.65 
31.93 

163.19 

170.63 

158.27 
87.40 
83.09 
.41 
37.38 
40.85 
50.12 

121.92 



3,697.95 



121.21 



490.99 

30.73 
409.22 
260.25 
363.64 
379.70 
379.70 

40.42 
430.53 

25.16 
101.06 

75.89 



2,987.29 



86.54 

51.15 

86.54 

271.89 



496.12 



No. 



18759 



17544 



18451 
18663 



17883 



18665 
20393 



18665 



Name. 



SENECA FALLS, N. Y. 

PatrickJMcGraw 

Michael Ferguson 

William S. Van Houten 

Thomas Carr, jr 

Total 

SYRACUSE, N. Y. 

William E. Hurd, administra- 
tor Byron E. Hurd, deceased. 

Albert E. Lewis 

John Mo ran, administrator 
Jeremiah L. O'Brien, deceased 

Nettie E. Ross, administratrix 
Willis E. Ross, deceased 

Patrick J. Sullivan 

James A. Nally 

George Allenbrant 

George Bean 

Charles H. Burke 

Francis J. Bourke 

Hugh H. Connelly 

Oscar W. Culver 

John J. Dunn ; 

Thomas F. Fleming 

James A. Gallagher 

Walter W. Hamilton 

John Heinerwalden 

George Hopkins 

Valentine Kaiser 

Lewis Light 

Charles J. Naumann 

Charles L. Ogle 

Richard J. Parkinson 

Norville R. WiUiams 

Edward T. Yoe 

Charles A. Huntington 

Total ; ■'.. 

TROY, N. Y. 

Frank O. Benson 

Estate Abram B. Ksensky, de- 
ceased 

John P. Albertson et al., ad- 
ministrators Isaac Downing, 
deceased 

Frederick "G. Obermaier. •.. 

Richard J. Devine 

John B. Elgie 

Russell F. Benson 

Henry W. Connor 

Marvin A. Hayner 

Floyd F. Mower 

Edward L. Witbeck 

Charles E. .Alien : 

Le Grand Barringer 

William J. Fink , 

William Hutchinson 

Nathan Joel '. 

J. B. Albert Le May 

Thomas J. McCarthy 

Michael Mooney 

John R. Niles 

Frank P. Purcell 

William H. Quinn 

Total 

UTICA, N. Y. 

Elizabeth C. , executrix Thomas 

L. Jones 

John B. Frick 

James L. G. Reid 

Washington I. E verson 

John Philo 

Henry H. Quick 

Clarence A. Bates 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIrJ CLAIMS. 823 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of Hay 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



19286 

1:943 

18276 

18819 

18530 
18930 

16990 
20444 



17976 



UTICA, N. y.— continued. 

Richard J. Lloyd i $129:65 

John F. Ryan 102.51 

John Steifrater I 34.02 

Albert G. Spencer I 109.86 

James A. Burke i 120.89 

Charles E. Batchelor 185.47 



Total J 1,365.87 

WATERTOWN, N. T. 

B. Mason Ladd 

WEST TEPT, N. Y. 



Michael L. Walsh. 
James McQuade . . 
James Lyons 



Total 

CHARLOTTE, N. C. 

William M. Smith 

RALEIGH, N. C. 



John W. Parker... 
David T. Adams... 

JohnH. Bell 

Charles W. Bevers . 

Total 



WILMINGTON, N. C. 

G. T. Dixon 



FARGO, N. DAK. 



Theodore Franks. . 
Sidney W. Hooper. 
John M. Johnson. . 



Total. 



AKRON, OHIO. 

William A. Caldwell.. 
Henry C. Eichenlaub. 

Patrick Flanagan 

W.H. Kasch 

Arthur E. Limric 

FredH. O'Brien 

Henry A. Pardee 

C. C. Pomeroy 

John W. Sabin 

Charles D. Steese 



Total. 



CANTON, OHIO. 



David E. Johns 

Edward Govenet 

Henry J. Piero 

Ephraim G. Sheaffer. 
Henry L. Archinal... 

Monroe Appel 

Charles W. Reed 

John C. Vance 

Sylvester K. Nichols. 



156. 39 



23.71 
27.63 
37.61 



88.95 



43.71 



49.36 
49.36 
60.17 
49.36 



208. 25 



19.39 



166. 26 
45.38 
172. 83 



384. 47 



20.21 
63.28 
68.84 
52.67 
68.84 
20.21 
54.33 
10.11 
54.33 
92.29 



505. 11 



32.13 
32.13 
90.54 
30.52 
35.88 
5.36 
8.04 
93.01 
51.56 



Total. 



379. 17 



17539 



18313 

18685 



18490 



18685 



CINCINNATI, OHIO. 



Lewis A. Aull $86. 35 

Charles R. Bach 75.30 

Annie L. Burke, administratrix 

Richard C. Burke, deceased ... 70. 75 

Will J. B. Campbell 55.89 

Charles C. Couden 63. 51 

Charles C. Davis 57.11 

Frederick W. Dieckman 24. 38 

Michael J. Fay 62. 29 

Edward J. Franey 34.14 

August Glunz 22.27 

William A. High 117.76 

Le Grande La Boiteaux 95. 47 

Emer Lukey 86. 35 

Eleanor McMillan, administra- 
trix Alexander McMillan, 

deceased 3. 09 

Joseph Metzner 26. 19 

Frank A. Murdock 80.86 

Elbridge B. Pearce 117.76 

William Richards 117. 76 

Anthony Rieger 117. 76 

John J. Robbins 4. 12 

George J. Schawe 21.03 

Oliver P. Sharpe 141.11 

Cornelius J . Sheridan 94. 76 

Samuel F. Stevens 20. 21 

Robert L. Stokes, jr .61 

Frederick W . Sudbrack 22. 47 

Stanley W. Tobin 41.98 

Annie Willenborg, administra- 
trix John Willenborg, de- 
ceased 94. 76 

Albert K. Young 55. 89 

Frank A. Zech 9.90 

John Becker 278.87 

Harry C. Cragg 78.22 

Herschel P. Ferris 439.35 

Frank M. Meyer 317. 17 

John F. Meyer 169. 26 

Andrew Spaeth 291.84 

Henry K. Boswell 2.27 

Thomas S. Coons 12.37 

George J. Dovle 243. 95 

John G. Rechtin 75. 27 

George L. Talley 75. 28 

Edward J. Weigold 72. 61 

WilliamH. Wood 10.77 

Wilberforce C. Dempster 117. 76 

Ayres B. Adams 10.64 

Joseph Luckman 14. 37 

Thomas J. McCleary 11. 33 

Hugh J. Savage 48. 33 

JohnW.Wrenn 62.14 

Herbert G ranviUe Holter 103. 34 

Richard Roethig 24. 38 

Joseph C. Thole 41. 98 

George Thomas Tomkins 13. 40 

James T. Gordon 32.96 

Henry Abeling 19.18 

Mattie Anderson, administra- 
trix of Oliver Anderson 65.57 

Peter Bichard 87. 55 

George Burrows 65. 57 

Lawrence C. Carpenter 45. 83 

Charles M. Clark 74. 51 

Edmond T. Clayton 52.20 

Thomas J. McCleary 105. 06 

Theodore E. MacKnight 45.83 

Michael J. Manley 1 19. 18 

WilliamH. Maus 1 42.28 

Michael Moesta 74, 51 

WilliamH. Monroe 43.66 

Martin E. Mooney 39.39 

Michael Condon 19. 18 



824 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



CINCINNATI, OHIO— Cont'd. 



Charles W. Creager 

Cornelius Cronin 

TJlysse L. Febuary 

Joseph H. Fredelake... 
Charles H. Froehlich. . . 

George W. Fuller 

George W. Gateh 

Charles H. Gobrecht. . . 

Edward Giffin 

Charles A. Haley 

Vincent Harding 

Edward J. Hardt 

Charles D. Harris 

John Heatherton 

John M. Johnson 

Herman Joseph 

William M. Koehler 

Walter Lawson 

Harry L. Lewis 

William P. Lowry 

Justin Murphy 

William Noon 

John O'Leary 

Charles J. Riley 

Samuel Robinson 

Michael F. Ryan 

Edward J. Saffin 

Hugh J. Savage 

Clemens Scheve 

William J. Schmidt 

Charles S. Schubert 

William Schulmeyer . . . 
Anthony Schwenniger. 

William H. Shay 

Stephen G. Schnell 

Lewis W. K. Tracy 

Walter J. Trotter 

Alexander H. Wescott . 

Abram L. Willis 

August Witte 

William E. Widan 

W. E. Parks 

John W. Wrenn 

Edward Hoar 

George F. Wall 

William A. High 



Total. 



CLEVELAND, OHIO. 



Luther P. Bates 

John F. Cogan 

Leopold Dusheck 

Henry M. Eckerman. 

Joseph G. Faflik 

Joseph D. Hatch. . . 

Frank S. Isham 

John F. Lieblien 

J. R. McBride 

John M. Riedel 

David T. Sherwood.. 

Henry E. White 

Charles Zizka 

Asa Eldred 

Charles Zimmerman . 
William C. Bruggert. 

Louis B. Burlin 

Charles F. Cihak 

John P. Gill 

Otto F. Kadow 

Charles J. Keefe 

Joseph O'Connor 

Martin J. O'Donnell. 

Charles L. Shaw 

John W. Gumpert . . . 
Frank W. Gilbert.... 

Louis Hartmiller 

Henry J. Spittle 

John L. Bleasdale... 
Dennis J. Moran 



Amount. 



$39. 39 
52.59 
39.39 
44.76 
39.39 
39.39 
65.57 
105. 06 
25.36 
39.39 
87.53 
65.57 
52.76 
39.39 
65.57 
65.57 
74.51 
74.51 
52.20 
19.18 
65.57 
87.55 
65.57 
52.20 
19.18 
19.18 
49.96 
19.18 
65.04 
87. 55 
39.39 
65.57 
19.18 
52.20 
43.66 
105. 06 
74.51 
74.51 
65.57 
39.39 
65.57 
63.78 
77.25 
460. 06 
72.61 
89.61 



8, 325. 85 



85.84 
25,16 
48.68 
48.68 
48.68 
28.87 
2.68 
38.37 
85.84 
48.68 

118. 11 
68.67 

118. 11 
22.47 
35.47 
12.79 
12.58 
10.11 

143. 85 
10.31 

275. 34 
39.39 
.61 
22.89 
32.99 
54.93 
72.10 
27.01 
74.31 
4.13 



No. 



18461 
18588 



17529 



18775 



20882 



Name. 



CLEVELAND, OHIO— Cont'd 

Edward F. Wilcox 

Edward N. Newton 

Miles A. Beebe 

Charles W. Blackmur 

John L. Bolden 

Lorenz C. Burgwald 

John R. McBride 

James F. McGrath 

Charles L. McMillan 

Christopher Mackin 

Stephen O . Caldwell 

Richard Clevering 

Charles L. Dermis 

Adam Eble 

Augustus H. Eggert 

Edwin H. Farr 

Thomas Gallagher 

George M. Geitz 

Charles M. Gesch 

John L. Greene 

William Gresmuck 

Sebastian J. Hug 

James F. Jelinek 

James A. Kaighin 

Charles A. Keller 

William J. Kirby 

Louis W. Kramer 

Thomas E. King 

Philip Kreckel 

William F. Laetsch 

Andrew L. Leland 

WiUiam Llewellyn 

Joseph C. Mangan 

David Mathews 

Fred W. Meyer 

Henry Newman 

William A. Niebes 

Charles M. O'Brien 

John J. Osborn 

John L. Polcar 

Henry Remmel . . . ; 

Daniel F. Riley 

James A. Roberts 

Silas Rossiter, jr : 

Fred L. Saxton 

John T, Schleinkofer 

Andrew Schuele 

Joseph Slaby 

Fayette S. Trafton 

James B. Vining 

FredC. Wilk 

Charles A. Wing 

Patrick Weir 

Total , 

COLUMBUS, OHIO. 

Lot O. Dresbach 

Thomas J. Fitzpatrick 

Edward G. Schott 

William R. Bevelheimer 

James P. Clipson 

George T. Vercoe 

William A. Will 

Total 

DELAWARE, OHIO. 

William Downheimer 

Burn H. McCown 

John Mahoney 

Frank C. Poppleton 

Total 

ELYEIA, OHIO. 

Fred W. Wagner 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 825 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



FINDLAY, OHIO. 



Lauren A. Siddall. . 
Charles K. Beach.. 

Charles Karst 

Michael D. Crohen. 
Arthur D. Cheney. . 
Edward K. Taylor. 



Total. 



FREMONT, OHIO. 



George C. Lance 

Washington Deffehbaugh. 
Stanislaus A. S. Stuber... 



Total. 



LIMA, OHIO. 



John McKerren 

Charles F. Hoover. . 
Thomas J. Gorman. 
Charles H. Thoring. 

Fred C. Herrold 

Cantwell McGee. . : . 



Total. 



MANSFIELD, OHIO. 



John G. Cairns 

William Ackerman. 
Frank D. Gadsby. . 
John L. Burneson. . 
Albert B.Endley.. 
Ebenezer C. Ford. . 

Edward Lape 

Frank Milner 

George Pfeifer 

George T. Rhodes . . 



Total. 



MASSILLON, OHIO. 



Thomas Keenhan. 
Charles E. Young. 



Total. 



MIDDLETOWN, OHIO. 



James Coyle 

Harry D. Hyams. 



Total. 



Amount. 



$20. 62 
20.62 
20.62 
20.21 
30.52 
51.15 



163. 74 



8.66 

3.30 

48.83 



60.79 



49.54 
49.54 
74.16 
92.48 
110.88 
20.00 



396. 60 



65.43 
38.36 
51.73 
104. 57 
64.06 
64.06 
77.57 
64.06 
5& 74 
95.76 



684. 34 



61.05 



109.93 



113. 67 
113. 67 



227. 34 



NEWARK, OHIO. 


51.15 


Frank T. Thorp 


73.43 


Frank Frost 


83.25 


Holba G. Mitchell 


99.08 


Frank C. Cady 


53.40 


Daniel M. Guy 


42.90 




34.02 


Frank White 


34.02 


Mary Stasel, administratrix of 
William Stasel, deceased 


204.53 


Total 


675. 78 






NORWALK, OHIO. 

John O'Brien 


31.96 


John Shibley 


15.26 


William O. Meyer 


15. B8 






Total 


63.10 







No. 



17293 



18805 



17580 



17939 



18712 



17072 



Name. 



PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. 

Joseph W. Mitchell 

Charles E. Graham 

Frederick L. Kalb 

Total 

SALEM, OHIO. 

Percey E. Harris 

Will H. Read 

William T. Smith 

Total 

SANDUSKY, OHIO. 

Adam Rice 

Jacob L. Missig 

JohnH. Kelly 

Eugene W. Megginson 

Total 

STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. 

George M. Kerchner 

Thomas B. Lindsay 

Arthur A. Brannigan, brother 
James Brannigan, deceased. 

JohnH. Roth 

Alois Schwerber 

John M. Lloyd 

Total 

TIFFIN, OHIO. 

James Leonard 

John P. Martin 

Henry A. Lautermilch 

Leon B. Myers 

Charles C. Spiess 

Total 

TOLEDO, OHIO. 

Joseph F. Bihl 

Peter Boyle 

Ambrose Carl 

Andrew M. Clemens 

Orren E. Collins 

John T. Coombs 

George A. Dougherty 

August Fischer 

Jesse F. M. Fox 

John Gallagher 

Edward Halpin 

Timothy Kelly 

Edward B. Langel 

Valentine Lohner 

Charles MeBrien 

John J. McMahon 

William A. Mason 

Peter J. Mattimore 

Charles R. Mayne... 

Otto E. Meissner 

Austin M. Payne 

Harry C. Rake 

Louis Ruthenberg 

William H. Schoonmaker 

Spencer Stewart 

William R. Taft 

Cleveland B. Taylor 

JohnH. Tripp 

Michael Walsh 

William M. Wegnei 

Frank P. Weiss 

Charles I. Weinert 

Emery P. Willey 



Amount. 



$17. 53 
186. 78 
25.36 



229. 67 



5.78 
77.86 
77.86 



161.50 



74.48 

34.02 

126.43 

98.27 



333. 20 



56.43 
20.21 

50.12 
128. 86 
120.93 
127.98 



504.53 



77.81 
47.85 
29.70 
29.70 
77.81 



2(32. 87 



119.60 
85.88 
17.74 

102.51 
88.20 
17.33 

190. 44 

55. 43 

2.48 

89.37 

117. 21 
85.88 
85.88 

140.55 
88. 20 
73.25 
41.07 

150.51 

109. 28 

105.73 
36.09 
82.00 
3.30 
88.20 
88.20 
80.97 
84.35 
88.20 
27.84 
62.70 

140.55 
22.68 
88.20' 



826 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act. of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 


Name. 


Amount. 


No. 


Name. 


Amount. 




Toledo, ohio — continued. 
Join B. Willoh 


$85. 88 
36.94 
67. 40 
29.70 
29.28 
32.17 


19830 

19931 
17190 
17509 

19034 

19123 

18468 

20510 

20752 

19964 
19033 

17200 
19612 

20803 
18988 


ALLENTOWN, PA. 

Harry C. Roth 


$34. 11 






Charles S. Stettler 


34.11 






Franklin F. Wittenbecher 


141. 66 






12.79 






Milton H. Walt 


58.78 








73.31 




Total.... 




146. 62 




2,941.19 




110. 11 




URBANA, OHIO. 




73 31 




3.71 
3.71 




109.82 




Total ■ 




18774 


794. 62 






ALTO ON A, PA, 






Total 






7.42 






WARREN, OHIO. 


99.89 
18.69 




37.74 

37.74 

308. 20 


William A. Black 






2.34 


19052 




85.58 








85.58 








85.58 




Total 




12.17 




383. 68 




61.43 




"WOOSTER, OHIO. 




85 58 




38.51 
246. 71 
57.70 
13.82 
57.70 


Total 






536. 84 


16946 


BEAVER FALLS, PA. 


















46.38 








76.92 




Total 




54.56 




414. 44 




76.92 




YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO. 








28.62 
30.09 
30.09 
30.09 
52.87 
68.06 


' Total 






309. 34 


18746 


BELLEFONTE, PA. 
BETHLEHEM, PA. 




















33.62 




















Total 


239.82 


21.23 




Jacob T. Daily 






XENIA, OHIO. 

John L. Hook 


15.26 




37.92 
67.85 




10.11 




Edwin U. Daily 


22.22 




Alfred S. Dech 


38.90 


18802 


Total 












Total 


107. 72 




105.77 


BRADFORD, PA. 

Thomas G. Wollf 










ZANESVILLE, OHIO. 






89.88 
40.01 
16.09 
33.62 
11.96 
10.11 
61.68 


141.95 






164. 15 


■18126 




195. 99 




Smith T. Brown 

Robert M. Carlow 




117. 70 




Total 






619. 97 






BUTLER, PA. 

Hallet W. Kelly 






William B. Warstall 












Total 


36.91 




263. 35 




36.91 




Henry L. Richey 






PORTLAND, OREG. 

Newton L. Gilham 


36.91 




294.42 

232. 21 

26.87 




36.91 




Total 






147. 64 


16986 


CARLISLE, PA. 






Ernest F. Patterson 




18767 








Total 


20.21 




553. 50 




31.55 




ALLEGHENY, PA. 

William T. Bickerstaff 




23 71 




1.85 
3.09 
2.49 




141.30 




Charles A. Pefler 


80.86 


18344 




133. 46 




George F. Moul 


George B. Totten 


141.30 








194.79 




Total 


Total 






7.43 


767. 18 











ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. • 827 

Statement of letter-earner overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 


Name. 


Amount. 


: NO. 


Name. 


Amount. 


18550 


CHAMBERSBURG, PA. 


$28. 46 
28.46 
28.46 


| 17069 
17582 

• 

21135 

21695 

19106 
19148 

19054 
19147 

18599 

20792 
20770 

17034 


LANCASTER, PA. 

John C. Shroad 


$104. 78 






LEBANON, PA. 

Julius P. Bowman 












Total 






83.38 


4.74 




CHESTER, PA. 

William McFadden 




6 60 




34.81 
55.69 


Elmer D. Light 


10.52 






18.36 


18928 


Total 






Robert T. Mellon 






Total 


40.22 




90.50 


LOCKHAVEN, PA. 

John R. Gast 






EASTON, PA. 






0.61 

6.81 

12.17 

75.17 


13.62 


18089 


Robert Mills 


13.14 






Edwin W. Till 


7.63 






Mrs. Katherine Reed, widow of 
Thomas M. Reed, deceased ... 

Total 






Henry E. Ealer, deceased ... 

Total 


53.05 




94.76 


87.44 




ERIE, PA. 


MAHANOT CITY, PA. 




18410 


120. 04 
149. 22 
99.01 
88.79 
123. 97 
68.07 
185. 18 
120. 34 
120. 34 




















464. 77 
















Frank P. Reed 






Henry J. Fries 




18430 


Total 




19150 








Edward C. Slocum 






M'KEESPORT, PA. 


















Total 






1,074.96 


88.95 




MEADVILLE, PA. 




18008 


HARRISBURG, PA. 


102. 26 

61.46 
60.64 
145. 45 
145.45 
109. 82 
212. 05 
33.82 
187. 37 
330. 51 


137. 85 




Mary E. Breckenridge, execu- 
trix of John E. Breckenridge, 




137. 85 




Jacob Moritz 


137.85 




Total 








413. 55 






NEWCASTLE, PA. 




















125. 29 








125. 29 




John O'Brien 




125. 29 








125. 44 




Total 


Total 






1, 388. 83 


501. 31 




HAZLETON, PA. 

Leonard L. Babcock 


NORRISTOWN, PA. 




19442 


7.63 
18.11 
87.56 
87.56 


















Nathaniel J. M. Heck 


116. 02 




Total 












Total 


251. 41 




200. 86 


OIL CITY, PA. 










HUNTINGDON, PA. 

Frederick E. Mobus 






313. 51 
313. 51 


16.50 




Frank S. Kitchell 


32.79 
















Harry L. Rogers 






Total 


3.30 




627. 02 


Walter B. Fornoff 


27.22 




Total 






JOHNSTOWN, PA. 

Robert H. Bridges 






94.94 
94.94 
94.94 
40.42 

91.74 
94.94 
196. 89 
' 94. 94 
30.31 
22.47 


112. 60 




PHILADELPHIA, PA. 




18834 






Herman Edelmann 






John H. Herzog 


126. 70 




Joseph S. Hipp 




111. 24 




Mary Mullin, widow of Bernard 


Charles H. Cunliffe 


130. 81 






121. 36 




Thomas D. O'Neal 




24.09 




Patrick O'Toole 




130. 47 




Levi J. Ripple 




135. 27 




William H. Coleman 




148. 32 




Charles H. Temple 




43.26 




Total 




93 65 




856.53 




121. 26 






Michael J. Dooley . . rr^. 


105. 26 



828 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



Philadelphia, pa. — continued. 



John F. McGinley 

Edward S. Master 

Thomas H. Peto 

Frank A. Strehle .v 

M. Dugan 

Joseph Hirshbule 

Joseph Lucke 

Hugh F. McFadden 

John Steitz 

John A. Winter 

John F. Wunder 

Patrick F. Martel 

Henry L. Widmeier 

Harry Anderson 

Lawrence Clark 

Walter F. Henry 

Patrick J. Muldoon 

Charles F . Sch wering 

Thomas Timlin 

William P. Walsh 

Thomas Whalen 

James E. Bigley 

Martin H. Bigley, deceased 

John J. Comev - - 

David F. Dick 

James H. Brown, deceased 

Edward W. Campion 

Michael J. Cassidy, deceased 

Richard Condon 

Paul V. Connor 

Niehola s Coogan 

John W. Curran 

Robert Cassidy 

Thomas P. Caiilfield 

William Dale 

James D. Dever 

Thomas F. Durning 

Thomas Doyle 

Robert J. Farrelly, deceased 

William E. Fetters, jr 

Philip C. Fisher 

Louis H. Gahagan 

William B. Goines 

Harry J. Hagan 

Erwin Fratz, deceased 

Margaret Fratz, widow of Wil- 
liam V. Fratz, deceased 

James Gaffney 

William E. Grady 

George F. Kelly 

Joseph H. Maurer 

Thomas O'Brien 

John O'Donnell 

James A. Rooney 

George R. Serrill 

Edward F. Stanton, No. 1 

C. Wildermuth, jr 

Frank H. Barrett 

Nicholas B. Bent 

Thomas J. Blunden 

Bentley Boyle 

Francis P. Braceland 

Oscar M. Bradbury 

James H. Kelly 

John A. Kerns, deceased 

Patrick J. Kiley, deceased 

Albert Kleinfefder 

John A. Lalor 

Thomas McCormack 

John McDermott 

Patrick D. McPoyle 

George McVay, administrator 
of Franklin E. McVay, de- 
ceased 

Joseph M. Mahaney 

Lewis J. Martin 

Charles B. Moore 

Lewis J. Ochner 

Isaac W. Rehl , 

John Schweikert 



Amount. No. 



$18. 77 

109. 18 
15.47 
89.68 
5.15 
28.46 
28.46 
25.56 
28.46 
13.61 

111. 60 
31. 55i 
28.46 

304. 88 
34.02 

120. 50 
20.21 
32.79 
24.38 
80.72 
19.59 
19.59 
91.77 
26.86 
15.68 
31.33 
25.75 
25.20 
30.45 

222. 51 
37.76 
37.76 
37.76 
24.33 
37.76 
18.98 
15.68 
18.98 
17.74 
37.76 
1.03 
44.47 
28.66 
2.06 
17.53 

43.60 
13.61 
33.54 
17.12 
15.88 
85.76 
28.46 
22.27 
17.12 
24.13 
28.46 
28.12 
39.80 

1.85 

5.98 
29.53 
37.76 
54.49 
26.10 

7.22 
54.07 
11.55 

7.63 
43.10 
29.08 



181. 88 
107. 96 
37.76 
55.31 
195. 36 
5.15 
4.74 



Name. 



Philadelphia, pa. — continued. 



William Slavin 

Frederick Taxis 

Joseph M. Watson 

George H. Wells 

Harrv F. Boss 

Frank E. Trout 

John Farrell 

John Hergesheimer 

Eva Donahue, administratrix 
James T. Donahue, deceased . . 

Samuel P. Hegener 

Harry B. Knight 

Theodore E . Thomas 

Joseph Ashdale 

James Branigan 

Charles A. Clausen 

Mary W. Colbert, administra- 
trix John F. Colbert, de- 
ceased 

Daniel J. Crossin 

Michael J. Delaney 

William Evans, jr 

William Garton 

Gustave Z. Guiras 

Harry C. Hickey 

JohnH. Holz 

Joseph Conway 

Francis P. J. Crilly 

Maggie Davis, administratrix 
George F. Davis, deceased 

Bernard J. Dever 

Thomas Flood 

James A. Haviland 

Patrick F. Heff ron 

A. F. Hudome 

William T. Logan 

i John McDonald 

Lawrence Phillips 

Elias A. Steele 

Charles M. Bellemere 

Samuel F. Cloak, deceased 

Harry A. Corcoran 

Edward J . Higgins 

Henry Kemble 

Jeremiah H. McCarthy 

John F. Hughes 

John Hulands 

Joseph C. Kelly 

Rosalie L.Lewis, administratrix 
Robert W. Lewis, deceased. .. 

Charles H. McCullough 

Eugene A. McNerney 

John F. O'Brien 

Harry Schuller 

Henry Stonemetz 

John Toner 

James J. Brown 

John McCour 

Louis Sickles 

Amelia Soeffmg, administra- 
trix Charles Soeffing, de- 
ceased 

Kate S. Volk, administratrix 
John C. Volk, deceased 

Randall W. Bayle 

Matthias J. Brady 

Edward McDonough 

Thomas A. McGarvey 

Leonard C. Martin 

Walter E. Mooney 

John P. Moore 

James Moran 

W infield Nutt 

William H. Stephens 

John J. P. Boyd 

William B. O'Hara, administra- 
tor Michael J. Butler.deceased 

Joseph Bryant 

Edwin M. Carr 

Daniel H. Cohill 



Amount. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



829 



Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



No. 



Name. 



Amount. 



172721 
18139/ 
18139 



PHILADELPHIA, PA. — Cont'd. 

Harry W. Fell 

Peter A. Fitzpatrick 

Loui A. Gury 

Penrose S. Hall 

Elam B . Harding 

Joseph B . Logan 

William L. Houghton 

Margaret C. Loughery, admin- 
istratrix Neil Loughery, jr., 
deceased 

JohnB. McCafferty 

Henry A. Macready 

Theodore F. Shonert 

Walter Sieber 

Albert J. Weyl 

Frank L . Woolly 

Joseph P. Loughery 

Albert L. Pleibet 

James J. Hagan 

Andrew A. Cain 

Edward J. Duffy 

James Meehan 

George A. Shane 

Susan M. Goodwin, administra- 
trix of James J. Goodwin, 
deceased 

Daniel H. Hearn 

James W. McSride 

I Isaac K. Mann 

: Charles Sautter 

I Richard Bennett 

' Peter Kane 

John T. Kelly 

Owen Kelly 

Robert J. Lynch 

Thomas McClenahan 

Thomas F. McDonough 

Bernard McGinnis 

John McNulty 

John Malseed 

Bernard J. Martin 

William J. Neson 

Ignatius Reynolds 

Charles A. Ward 

Edward M. White 

Maurice Cor key 

Alfred L. Glackin 

John H. Kirk 

Thomas Labrum 

Walter P. Kirk 

Ernest Schiele 

George V . Thron 

Charles M. Bellemere , 

Charles J. Birchill 

Joseph Burrows 

William Carrigan 

Dennis J. Conlon 

Edward C. Dern 

Joseph C. Downing 

James A. Dytch 

James H. Giiinan 

Lewis E . Hale 

Jacob J. Lutz 

Charles McCloskey 

Joseph A. McDerhiott 

John E . Nolan 

Hugh F. Reilly 

Edward F. Rumig 

Thoma s H . Scanlan 

Michael J. Sammon 

Francis J. Connor 

J James J. Lang 

William D. Leidy 

Thomas J. Shea 

John F. McDevitt 

30716 Frank B. Abbott 

Conrad Bettenhauser 

I William C. Carlin 

William P. Clement 



S16. 09 

114. 44 

69.30 

109. 52 

2.06 

36.26 

.41 



12.98 
8.56 
50.47 
24.03 
33. b3 
1.65 
16.09 
60.67 
75.88 

70.37 

82.30 
89.31 
19.59 
8.66 



81.88 

9.08 

43.60 

31.35 

19.59 

20.42 

22.68 

22.68 

31.35 

31.35 

51.14 

.28 

22.68 

4.33 

12.58 

27.84 

105. 25 

34.23 

26.19 

23.51 

.61 

24.54 

7.63 

20.83 

23.51 

85.18 

15.68 

19.89 

37.76 

25.75 

22.68 

73.43 

43.60 

26.19 

7.84 

9.28 

26.19 

23.51 

26.19 

23.51 

27.43 

23.51 

27.43 

34.02 

9.28 

141.15 

42.21 

.61 

17.74 

23.51 

4.12 

2.75 

4.12 

2.27 



18139 



PHILADELPHIA, PA.— Cont'd. 



Lewis T. Franke 

William T. Haig 

Alfred D . Hamilton 

H. Frank Lenning 

James V. Loughran.. 

Joseph F. McLaughlin 

Daniel E . McMonagle 

John P. Maguire 

James Mahoney 

Harry C. Newport 

Oscar L. Ott 

Benjamin T. Ramcey 

Elijahs. Reiff 

John H. Schiesser 

Michael H. Shaughnessy 

Samuel B. Trout 

William W. Weiss 

Jacob Atkinson 

Henrv C. Boyd 

George W. Bell 

Charles Jackel 

William Johnson. 

Abraham Josephs 

JohnF. Boyle 

John J. Borbidge 

Joseph Burrows 

William J. Barr 

Patrick J. Connor 

Franklin Dettinger 

Anthony De Silver 

Horace W. Dengler 

Herman Eggert 

William H. Fisher 

John W. Fair 

Thomas A. Fitzpatrick 

George H. Green , 

John P. Bradley , 

Charles C. Goodwin 

Arthur B . Davenport 

William L. Holmes 

Robert A. Nichols 

James P. Henry 

Ella O'Rourke, widow James 
O'Rourke, deceased 

James E . Hess 

John C. Truitt 

Henry P. M. Horn 

William J. Gleason 

Richard T. Huey 

David L. McBlain 

Thomas F. McDonough 

Hugh B . Moutrie 

Patrick Maher 

Mary A. Murray, administra- 
trix John F. Murray, deceased 

Thomas F. Mullahy 

Andrew Manning 

William McNiece, jr 

Francis A. Devlin 

Charlotte Nolan, administra- 
trix Michael J. Nolan, de- 
ceased 

AVilliam Norbeck 

Thomas E . Nugent . 

Edward M. Pereira 

Henry J. Bennett 

Robert Perry 

Hugh J. Muldoon 

James F. Rhodes 

John F. O'Brien, No. 2 

Thomas F. Ross 

Edward F. Stanton. No. 2 

Edward J . Whelan 

William H. Sipler 

Philip J. Taulane 

Eugene Weikel 



Amount. 



$2.68 

.82 

.61 

20.94 

20.94 

23.75 

20.94 

2.27 

71.50 

1.44 

1.03 

8.25 

3.30 

4.13 

3.09 

37.76 

3.09 

96.17 

148. 66 

135.96 

25.36 

126. 21 

109.52 

99.66. 

28.66 

131.84 

31.96 

38.15 

96.58 

107. 59 

32.99 

16.50 

22.68 

137. 33 

135. 27 

81.68 

68.84 

138.06 

318. 61 

125. 32 

106.43 

30.31 

71.16 
107. 99 
38.17 
111.93 
24.75 
25.32 
117. 94 
17.53 
37.76 
89.31 

25.36 
73.22 
90.67 
3.92 
84.00 



19.18 

10.52 
7.22 
7.63 

30.11 
125. 32 
123. 87 
141.45 

43.38 
109. 07 

13. 20 

35.36 
137. 33 
114. 75 

86.42 



Total ' 14,888.12 



830 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 
No. 



Name. 



Amount. 



PITTSBURG, PA. 



Egbert W. Connolly 

Alfred L.Dillon...' 

Max Killian 

James P. Layden 

Mary Mohen, administratrix 

William Mohen, deceased 

Thomas F. Murray 

J. F. Connor 

Martin B. Foley 

Sidney B . Foster 

Max Killian 

Joseph S. Larkin 

William W. McKee 

James H. Ward 

Andrew J. White 

William R. Niebaum 

Jacob R. Burkle 

Charles T. Hunter 

Henry C. Knauss 

C. D. McCoombs ; 

John F. Regan 

Andrew J. Verner [ $ ^| °J j 

Daniel D. Collins 

Ellen J. Daly, administratrix 

Thomas F. Daly 

Sarah Griffin, administratrix 

Martin J. Griffin 

William S. Hathaway 

J. Milton Hays I 

James E. Hershey i 

Daniel Linderman 

William S. Lowry ' 

Peter W. I. Gilfoyle 

John W. Anderson | 

John S. Boyle 

Gerhard A. Buchman j 

John D. Curley 

Charles A. Larkin 

William J. Larned 

Frank R. Osborn 

Frank J. Pender 

Carroll S. Duff 

Patrick H. Duffy I 

William J. Eberle 

John Gabb 

Henry A. Lang 

Rees Price 

John Powell 

JohnM. Rogers 

Martin Scott 

Cornelius Kevin 



No. 



$200. 64 

5.15 

153. 89 

111.79 

211.57 
183. 90 
292. 18 
167. 82 

15.06 

58.36 

202. 71 

7.63 

387. 41 

57.10 
126. 73 

93.09 
138. 02 
132. 39 
133. 90 
138. 02 

350. 54 



84.81 

63.32 

63.32 
105. 40 
113. 86 
105. 40 
105. 40 

26.81 
110.55 
113.44 

38.15 
113. 44 

89.79 
110.90 
118. 58 
111.58 
111.58 

41.25 
111.58 

38.15 
102. 04 
111.58 
110.90 

79.36 
113.58 

33.20 



20800 
17905 



18422 



Total I 5,550.19 

PITTSTON, PA. 



James Bone, jr 

William J. Gillespie 

John F. Costello 

John E. Daley 

James C. Delaney, deceased. 

John E. Dempsey 

Henry H. Weiss 



Total 

POTTSTOWN, PA. 

Edward K.Miller 

George W. Rohn 

Roscoe C. Shinehouse.. . 



Total 

HEADING, PA. 

William H. Seiders. . . 

John Gnau 

D. Webster Clay 

Thomas G. Harper. . . 



56. 72 
56.72 

120. 10 
12.79 
18.98 
18.98 

120. 10 



404. 39 



4.94 
4.94 
4.94 



20.00 
93.31 
63.97 
37.74 



19361 



19368 



19114 



17003 
18713 



18174 



18371 



Name. 



reading, pa.— continued. 



Robert Gerlach 

William H. Rogers. . 
Augustus Potteiger.. 
Franklin B. Thomas. 

David F. Knobb 

Peter S. Kefler 

Jerome Seider 

Thomas J. High 



Total. 



SCRANTON, PA. 



Edward D. Jones 

John Kelly 

Joshua R. Thomas 

Harry E. Whyte 

John R. Thomas 

William D . Morgan 

Michael O'Malley 

Alice J. Pickering, widow, Ed- 
ward R. Pickering, deceased. 

Joseph Schiel : 

Richard B. D. Wolf 

Eugene Evans 

William P. Kelly 

Morion G. Jackson 



Total. 



TITUSVILLE, PA. 



Albert KraSert 

Thomas J. Powers. 
Edwin L. Windsor. 



Total 

"WARREN, PA. 



Lewis P. Giegerich. 

John B. Russell 

Frank Witz 



Total. 



WASHINGTON, PA. 



Thomas N. Blair 

William A. McCausland. 
JohnD. McGlougbJin... 



Total. 



Amount. 



$98. 14 

44.55 

15.06 

2.06 

117. 61 

122. 56 

110. 12 

115. 96 



847. 08 



53.28 
45.31 
5.57 
55.90 
76.32 
81.88 
64.55 

60.23 
131. 43 

48.47 
397. 29 

24.54 

77.99 



1, 122. 76 



18.26 
18.26 
18.26 



54. 78 



199.55 
80.18 
199.55 



479. 28 



69.85 
107. 06 
69.85 



246. 76 



WILKESBARRE, PA. 



Thomas McGuire. . 
John R. Griffith... 
John J. O'Donnell. 
Merrit L. Line 



Total. 



PROVIDENCE, R. I. 



George A. Abbott 

James A . Abbott | $ ^ f x 

Emma J. Burt, administratrix 

William A. Mallery, deceased. 

George M Hunter 



Total . 



WOONSOCKET, R I. 

Robert H. Harrington... 



205. 92 

334. 73 

65.59- 

113.91 



720. 15 



30.52 
75.62 



94.08 
20.21 



220. 43 



14.11 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 831 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May ^4, 1SS8, etc. — Continued. 



No. 


Name. 


Amount. 


No. 


Name. 


Amount. 


17945 


CHARLESTON, S. C. 

John E. Craig 


$145.43 
193. 07 
162. 10 
79. 71 
142.56 
170. 42 

128. 7S 

142.56 
170.42 

79.71 
280. 41 
174. 35 

90.96 
165.44 

54.86 
128. SO 
182. 07 

176.42 
176.42 


1SS07 
18736 

18613 
1SS07 

17983 
16998 

18723 
19259 

18129 

19517 
17001 
17946 

19063 
18510 


MEMPHIS, TENN. 

Edward Foley 


S614. 03 




James Kinnane 


14.03 




William L. Downing 

William S. Elfe....". 

Patrick J. Hauler 

Thomas J. Kellv 

John L. Kiley. administrator 

JohnE. Kilev, deceased 

Nellie KjiaufT," administratrix 

Thomas J. Knauff, deceased . . 

Joseph J. Lessene 

William H. McCue 


6.19 




Bettie Moss, widow Thomas H. 
Moss, deceased .". 


90.25 

11.55 




Moses H. Barker 


35. 12 
4a 23 




John Caton 

Henry W. Eckels 


21.61 

15.26 






21. 61 




JohnT. Foley 

Alfred B. Gartner 

Jeremiah T. Holahan 

William G. McFarland 


13.82 






43.23 




Benjamin L. Matthews 

John J. Moloney 

William J. Morrison 

Estate James P. Murray, de- 

cea sed 

Alexander R. O'Donnell 

Thomas J. Sheehan 

Benjamin F. Smalls 


S.87 
25.12 
43.23 




Joseph B. Simkoke 

William E. Sulliyan 

David W. Washington 

.1 ames R . Wright 

A. M. Henderson 


15.26 
14.03 
25.12 
43.23 
43.23 
14.02 




Total 

GREENVILLE, S. C. . 

Willie T. Biers.. 


28.92 




2,856.49 


Total 






5S0.96 




49.29 
2S.0S 
2S.08 

29.49 


NASHVILLE, TENN. 

Benjamin F. Nichol 

AUSTIN, TEX. 


17986 






John H. Honour 

Thomas C. Long 

T. J. Thackston, father of Eze- 
kiel B. Thackston, deceased... 

Total 

HURON, S. DAK. 
SIOUX FALLS, S. DAK. 

Eli W. Dobson 

William M. Gordon 

Charles T. Hatch 

George L. Hoffman 

F. W. Sexton, brother and next 
of kin of Edward J. Sexton, 

Total 

CHATTANOOGA, TENN. 

Theodore T. Parker 


11.97 








134. 94 


122. 96 




Alonzo Gerard 


9.82 




66.82 


John W. Madison 


10.45 




L. M. Mitchell 


21.32 


18498 


Total • 

CORSICANA, TEX. 




164.55 




556.32 

556.32 

821. 36 

11.34 

926. 13 


20445 


19.18 




John L. Miller, jr 


12.58 






63.32 




Total 






95.08 




DALLAS, TEX. 






2,871.47 






51.56 
108. 07 
56.96 
22. 06 
73.02 
55.43 


3.30 


16997 


Jennie Overall, widow Willis P. 


35.93 




Hinton D. Alexander 




62.04 




John P. Fowler 




70.50 




Thomas J. Ivy 




35.93 






Total 




18460 


Theron Browne 


207. 70 




Total 


DENISON, TEX. 

Cvrus R. Scholl 






367. 10 






JACKSON, TENN. 

Dowan D . Ballard 






9.49 

3.51 

20.83 

9.69 


50.49 




EL PASO, TEX. 

Sheldon E. Bovee 




21010 






Harry M. Dawson 






Tobe S. Moss 






James H. Trimble 


54.45 




FORT WORTH, TEX. 






Total 


43.52 






KNOXVILLE, TENN. 

Sallie R., administratrix James 
L. D. McMillan, deceased 

Thomas M. McCannon, admin- 
istrator W. A. McCammon, 
deceased 






35.88 

23.78 
22.55 


2.27 




Edward S. Hall 


67.94 


17874 


Orlando F. Darby 


38.77 




Seth J. Howell ..'. 


180.21 






21.65 






146. 36 






96.38 


20999 


Monroe C. Monday 




3.51 




Total 


Total 






82.21 


557.09 









832 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



GALVESTON, TEX. 

Charles L. Heine 

William T. Snipes . 

Total.-... 

HOUSTON, TEX. 

George Fromm 

Isaac A. Kier 

Thomas Moore 

Clarence O. Skipper 

Total 

SAN ANTONIO, TEX. 

William Holt, jr 

Martin Jiminez 

David Jones 

William H. Mitchell 

George H. Mudd 

Cecil A. Nesbitt 

Julius Possert 

VanTeel 

Leon T. Mareschal 

David Sanders 

Hinton Smith 

Total 

SHERMAN, TEX. 

Wallace W. Andrews 

Edward Staples 

Total 

WACO, TEX. 

Moses P. Clinton 

David Pogue 

Augustus B. Trippe 

George A. Waddell 

David Frazier 

Total 

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 

Edgar Best 

Cassius C. Cummings 

Harry E. Dewey 

Charles E. Hay ward 

Orson A. Houghton 

FredL. Libby 

Brigham L. Morse 

William S. Naylbr 

Samuel F. Neslin 

John A. C. Neilson 

JohnK. O'Farrell 

Ezra F. Palmer 

Aaron S. Post 

Joseph E . Rigby 

RueH. Sholes 

Edgar D. Shurtlifl 

Samuel A. Skidmore 

Frank B. Snyder 

Linzey E . Sprague 

Walter Wiscomb 

William W. Wiscomb 

Total 

BURLINGTON, VT. 

George W. Austin 

Edgar Chiott 

Elmer E.Ooon 

Joseph DeVarem.es 



Amount. 



$25. 16 
13.40 



38.56 



9.93 

4.67 

4.67 

33.08 



52.35 



3.09 
61.46 
108.94 I 
108.94 
108. 94 
108. 94 
108. 94 
108. 94 
83.82 
191. 90 
220. 23 



1, 164. 14 



363. 37 
292. 49 



655. 86 



27.84 
10.11 
2.48 
40.42 
16.91 



97.76 



236. 51 
335. 62 
169. 53 
171.74 
236. 51 

57.13 
375. 33 
236. 51 

44.27 

7.63 

144. 70 

4.33 

64.85 

273. 18 
375. 33 
144. 70 
375. 33 

134. 19 
236. 51 

85.39 
42.94 



3,752.23 



28.62 
19.18 
28.62 
28.62 



No. 



18049 



18675 



18421 



19911 



18450 



Name. 



burlington, VT.— continued. 

David E. Flynn 

Annie Powers, administratrix 

of James E . Powers 

Charles A. Middlebrook 

Harry R. Thomas 

Carl Barnes 

Total 

MONTPELIER, VT. 

Harvey W. Brown 

John Miller 

Total 

ST. ALBANS, VT. 

Fred P. Brunson 

Lucius S. White 

Total 

ST. JOHNSBURY, VT. 

Henry A". Holden 

John A. Paddock 

Total 

RUTLAND, VT. 

John T. Lyston 

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 

Thomas K. Brumley 

Robert E. Lee 

William J. Mayo 

Joseph L. Smith. 

Total 

DANVILLE, VA. 

Charles L. Cheatham 

Lawrence C. Clarke 

Henry M. Watkins 

Pleasant H. Daswell 

Joshua P. Hunnicutt 

Cephos R. Jefferson 

Turner W. Patterson, jr 

Total 

LYNCHBURG, VA. 

William R. Falwell 

William R. Foulkes 

Charles P. Nowlin 

William J. Seaburv 

Thomas W. SpiUah 

Charles A. Taylor , 

Edward C. Bondurant 

Edward M. Bunch 

Clarence L. Craft 

Sidney J. Dickerson 

Beverly Dismond 

Thomas H. Jackson 

James A. Parsons 

Henry E . Stewart 

Samuel W. Patterson 

Total 

PETERSBURG, VA. 

Jaekson C. Bishop 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 833 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



Name. 



PORTSMOUTH, VA. 

George H. Armstead 

Silas C. Draper 

William A. Guy : 

John T. Myers 

Michan Noel 

Jesse M. Veale 

Amos Williams 

Joseph J. Cooper 

Total 

STAUNTON, VA. 

Paul Crowe 

Thomas E. Fuller 

Nathaniel M. Varner 

W. Starke Miller 

Total 

SEATTLE, WASH. 

Everett A. Hartley 

Rufus W. Hartley 

Jesse A. James 

Charles J. Riordan 

Joseph A. Scott 

Royall Haskell 

Total 

SPOKANE, WASH. 

Albert S. Miles 

Thomas E. Webb 

Walter H. Oyerend 

Frank P. Marshall (6 f jj| 

Edwin Dow 

Total 

TACOMA, WASH. 

JohnB. Fyfe 

Thomas J. S weany 

Anton C. Arnston 

George Bothner 

L. T. M.Clark 

Frank Taylor 

Abraham L. DeHufE 

Peter N. Elmore 

Julius W. Parker 

Total 

WALLA WALLA, WASH. 

Robert L. Stewart 

Edward F. Buffman 

H. M. Van Horn, mother Eu- 
gene Van Horn, deceased 

Total 

CHARLESTON, TV. VA. 

Frank Guill 

William O. Jones 

William H. Thomas 

Total 

PARKERSBURG, W, VA. 

Josiah T. Horr 



S. Rep. 382, 60-1 53 



$84. 10 

146. 86 

146. 86 

151. 07 

8.04 

114. 79 

13.82 

49.29 



92.53 
138.99 

93.99 
133.10 



458. 61 



87.04 
148.96 
148.96 

71.17 

25.98 



482. 11 



326. 83 
38.36 

101.48 
34.02 
60.64 
51.56 
68.27 

107.04 
5.79 



793.99 



133.28 



169. 14 
171.77 
160.96 



501.87 



714. 83 



146.65 
15.26 
158. 56 
113.44 
193. 58 
143. 49 



770.98 



35.26 
82.25 



15.77 



78.17 



No. 



18072 



18936 



20711 



19266 



19267 



19272 



17294 



19274 



20780 



18740 
18938 
20464 
19270 



Name. 



WHEELING, W. VA. 



Robert S. Agnew 

James Manton 

August H. Knoke. . . 

John H. Mason 

GrifPth B. Jones 

William Graham, jr. 

James M.-Noll 

Louis J. Knabe 

John J. Quigg 



Total. 



APPLETON, WIS 

John Brown 

Michael Hafner 

Henry F Losselyoug. . 



BELOIT, wis. 



John Donnelly 

Edward F. Hansen, administra- 
tor Charles Jv. Hansen de- 
ceased 

Charles G. Stocking 



Total. 



CHIPPEWA FALLS, AVIS. 



Michael Thornton. 

John Parent 

August I. Bruce... 
Henry Herbert 



Amount. 



Total. 



EAU CLAIRE, WIS. 



Phineas E. Bent 

Ole J. Moen 

James H. McGough. 

Edwin E. Sloggy 

Jere Murphy 

William E. Thomas. 



Total. 



JANESVILLE, AVIS. 



John F. O'Grady 

Edward V. Whiton. . . 

Claire D . Capelle 

John Gleason ... 

Marion McDonald 

Caleb J. Blakely 

Orlando V. Hanthorn. 
William J. Lennartz . . 



Total. 



LA CROSSE, WIS. 



Lewis L. Brown. . . 

Henry Lexins 

Edward F. Kevin.. 
Lorenz Bamberger. 
Albert E. Daniels.. 
Ambrose J. Hanus. 
Clarence Howard . . 
Iver Thorsen 



Total. 



$12. 58 
10.11 
12.58 
15.26 
13. 62 
5.15 
40.42 
22.20 

118.58 



250. 50 



191.29 
108. 19 
177.81 



25.16 



25.16 
30.32 



80.64 



40.21 

40.21 

220.53 

220. 53 



521.48 



105. 49 
134.99 
134.99 
134.99 
221.46 
122.96 



854. 88 



73.54 
73.54 
73.54 
16.71 
197. 67 
80.19 
83.87 
93.78 



692.84 



43.23 
194.53 
187.81 
163. 86 
219.06 
49.91 
74.88 
163. 86 



1,097.14 



834 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 



19269 



17979 



Name. 



MADISON, VIS. 



Thomas P. Cullman. 
William A. Devine.. 

William G. Dunn 

Nicholas Reif 

Henry Schmedeman. 
George A. Steinle. . . 



Total. 



MILWAUKEE, VIS. 



Frank Blomkum 

Leonard Meister 

Louis F. Renter 

Arthur Roberts 

Albert C. Rodee 

Herman F. Stauss 

Norbert H. Verf urth 

John B. Hasley. jr 

Thomas J. Murray 

John R. Nuzum 

Henry F. Pesta 

Louis Kobler 

John G. Van Altena 

Peter J. Van Lare 

Anton Olsen 

Elizabeth Augustus, adminis- 
tratrix C. A. Augustus, de- 
ceased 



Amount. 


No. 

! 


S73. 02 


• 19259 


248.27 




73. 02 




73.02 




73.02 




42.07 




582. 42 


102. 30 




170.29 




1.50.44 


20479 


170.29 




170.29 


! 


170.29 




63.12 




65.92 




S4.05 




60.23 




124. 55 


| 


170.29 




170.29 




127.08 


! 21220 


188.15 




192.96 





Total I 2, 180. 54 



Name. 



oshkosh, wis. 



James F. Buchanan 

John Fife, jr 

Edward E. Finney 

August Giese 

Charles A. Hasbrook, deceased . . 

Robert Redford 

August F. Schloerb 

William H. Wall 



Total. 



SHEBOYGAN, WIS. 

George F. Dusold 

Frederick Horstbrink 

William Obigt 

Henry B. Stein 

John'C. Bertshy 

August C. Brand 



Total 

WAKESHA, WIS. 

Archibald D . Price 



Statement of claims by States and cities. 



$32.75 
165.90 
127.93 
127.93 
127.93 
127.93 
127.93 
92.74 



931.08 



25.16 
152.83 
138.06 
152.83 

37.32 
166.63 



672.83 



84.35 



State and city. 


Amount. 

1 




ALABAMA. 


S129.44 

301.05 

223.14 

62.18 












Total.. 


715.81 




ARKANSAS. 


Fort Smith . 


94.65 
126.64 
338.05 
170.24 






Pine Blufi 






Total . . 


729.58 


t> 


CALIFORNIA. 


229.94 

2,523.37 | 

1,031.86 ; 

503.86 i 

270.19 ! 

3,620.83 

161.23 

198.41 
























Total.. 


8,539.69 

===== 

22.47 
112.61 
227.51 

85.14 
123.60 
267.11 




COLORADO. 
























Total.. 


838.44 i 







State and city. 



! Amount. 



CONNECTICUT. 



Bridgeport 

Derby 

Hartford 

Meriden 

Middletown... . 

New Britain 

New Haven 

New London . . . 

Norwalk 

Norwich 

South Norwalk. 



114.51 
220.46 
1,667.56 
707.84 
266.20 
167.15 
732.27 
445.35 
4.94 
340.27 
115.14 



Total j 4,781.69 * 



DELAWARE. 

Wilmington 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Washington 

FLORIDA. 



285.08 



Jacksonville. 
Pensacola . . . 



Total. 



3,281.20 



189.19 
476.04 



665.23 



GEORGIA. 

Atlanta ! 1,073.18 

Augusta 228. 70 

Brunswick | 1, 077.20 

Columbus ! 203. 42 

Macon j 1,248.60 

Savannah ! 4, 714.35 

Total ! 8,545.45 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 
Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued. 



835 



State and city. 



Aurora 

Belleville 

Bloomington . 

Cairo 

Chicago 

Danville 

Decatur 

Evanston 

Freeport 

Galesburg 

Jacksonville.. 

Joliet 

Kankakee 

Lasalle 

Mattoon 

Moline 

Monmouth... 

Oak Park 

Ottawa 

Pekin 

Peoria 

Quincy 

Rockford 

Rock Island.. 
Springfield . . . 

Sterling 

Streator 

Waukegan . . . 



Elkhart 

Evansville... 
Fort Wayne . 

Goshen 

Indianapolis . 

Kokomo 

Lafayette . . . 

Laporte 

Logansrjort . . 
New Albany. 
South Bend. 
Terre Haute . 

Total. . 



Burlington 

Cedar Rapids. 

Clinton 

Council Bluffs. 

Davenport 

Des Moines 

Dubuque 

Iowa City 

Keokuk." 

Muscatine 

Oskaloosa 

Ottumwa 

Sioux City 

Waterloo 



Total. 



Abilene 

Arkansas City. 

Atchison 

Emporia 

Fort Scott 

Hutchinson . . . 
Kansas City . . . 
Leavenworth . . 

Newton 

Ottawa 

Topeka 

Wellington 

Wichita 

Winfield 



Total. 



$319.42 
313.83 
299.43 
501.64 
10,126.79 
298.40 

62.89 
484.86 

86.62 

1,172.16 

288.94 

907.53 

425.46 

15.68 

49.70 
658.89 

66.61 
120.47 
240.10 
162.59 
872.08 
140.79 

33.62 
454.79 
1,185.01 
290.30 
969.05 
206.87 



Total 20, 818. 32 



101.02 

73.34 

103.86 

46.81 

1,538.28 

18.36 

7.01 

212. 03 

27.73 

121. 97 

2, 111. 42 

234. 10 



4, 895. 93 



1, 458. 64 
318. 31 
283. 44 
1, 731. 02 
1,149.10 
725. 31 
825. 19 
570. 47 
293. 25 
502. 51 
649. 92 
623. 03 
362. 16 
262. 28 



9,752.63 



132. 90 

31.86 

366. 66 

238.05 

531. 64 

160. 22 

482. 71 

387.89 

20.42 

135. 43 

282. 78 

375. 43 

,278.67 

348.05 



4,772.71 



State and city. 



KENTUCKY. 



Covington . . 
Frankfort.. 
Lexington.. 
Louisville.. 
Owensboro. 
Paducah . . . 



Total. 



LOUISIANA. 



New Orleans. 
Shreveport . . 

Total.. 



Auburn.. 
Bangor. . 

Bath 

Portland . 



Total. 



MARYLAND. 



Baltimore.. . 
Cumberland . 

Frederick 

Hagertsown . 

Total.. 



MASSACHUSETTS. 



Amesbury 

Beverly 

Boston 

Brockton , 

Clinton 

Fall River 

Fitchburg 

Gloucester 

Haverhill 

Holyoke 

Hyde Park 

Lawrence 

Lowell 

Lynn 

Maiden 

New Bedford . . 

Newton 

North Ada.ms . 
Northampton. 

Pittsfield 

Salem 

Springfield 

Waltham 

Westfleld 

Winchester 

Worcester 



Total. 



MICHIGAN. 



Adrian 

Battlecreek. 

Bay City 

Detroit 

Flint 

Grand Rapids 

Iron Mountain 

Lansing 

Manistee 

Muskegon 

Pontiac 

Saginaw, East Side . 
Saginaw, West Side. 



Total 7,384.40 



Amount. 



$136. 98 
714. 22 
301. 37 
126. 79 
150. 70 
2, 158. 94 



3, 589. 00 



604. 78 
1.65 



606. 43 



467. 75 
337. 76 
421.02 
721. 51 



1, 948. 04 



1,299.83 
116.68 
39.46 

5.78 



1, 461. 75 



44.54 

92.55 

, 915. 40 

189.85 

400. 50 

612. 50 

792. 77 

787.33 

168. 53 

267. 90 

45.18 

213. 33 

193. 15 

, 519. 50 

179.01 

166. 95 

92.79 

42.65 

26.60 

196. 21 

409.95 

294. 63 

368. 90 

37.74 

13.40 

, 123. 04 



22, 195. 30 



201.77 

142.50 

183. 61 

4, 714. 97 

702. 35 

3.12 

36.86 

132. 31 

416. 06 

126. 27 

118. 82 

337. 73 

267. 03 



836 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 
Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued . 



State and city. 



MINNESOTA. 



Duluth 

Mankato 

Minneapolis . 
Saint Paul . . 
Stillwater... 
Winona 



Total. 



MISSISSIPPI. 



Meridian... 

Jackson 

Vicksburg. . 

Total. 



Kansas City. 

Nevada 

Saint Joseph . 
Saint Louis.. 

Sedalia 

Springfield . . . 



MONTANA. 



Butte.. 
Helena . 



Total. 



NEBRASKA. 



Beatrice 

Fremont 

Grand Island.. 

Hastings 

Kearney 

Lincoln 

Nebraska City. 

Omaha 

South Omaha., 



Total. 



NEW HAMPSHIRE. 



Concord 

Dover 

Keene 

Manchester . . 

Nashua 

Portsmouth. 



Total. 



NEW JERSEY. 



Asbury Park 

Atlantic City.... 

Bridgeton 

Camden , 

Elizabeth 

Hoboken 

Jersey City 

Morristown 

Newark 

New Brunswick. 

Orange 

Paterson 

Plainfleld 

Trenton 



3, 473. 

34. 

875. 

13, 960. 

552. 

181. 



Total 19,078.12 



Total 9,702.53 



178, 

5. 

85, 

103, 

10, 

161. 

129. 

2,989. 

30. 



3,692.36 



789.25 
85.32 

262.07 
1,527.44 

301.39 
1,089.91 



$805. 38 
139. 17 
978.82 
179. 45 
252. 26 
680. 23 



4, 575. 31 



695. 14 
46.45 
95.86 



837. 45 



582. 96 
1,156.42 



1,739.38 



4,055.38 



277.91 
223.60 
114.95 
355.96 
304.13 
22.68 
452.76 
124.40 
776.68 
505.91 
636.00 
57.96 
67.85 
681.74 



State and city. 



Amount. 



NEW YORK. 



Albany 

Amsterdam 

Auburn 

Batavia 

Binghamton 

Brooklyn 

Buffalo 

Canandaigua 

Cortland 

Corning 

Elmira 

Flushing 

Geneva 

Glens Falls 

Hornellsville 

Ithaca 

Jamestown 

Little Falls 

Lockport 

Long Island City. 

Newburgh 

New York 

Norwich 

Ogdensburg 

Olean 

Oneida 

Oneonta 

Oswego 

Poughkeepsie 

Rochester 

Rome 

Saratoga Springs. 

Schenectady 

Seneca Falls 

Syracuse 

Troy 

Utica 

Watertown 

West Troy 



Total. 



NORTH CAROLINA. 



Charlotte 

Raleigh 

Wilmington. 

Total.. 



NORTH DAKOTA. 



Fargo . 



Akron 

Canton 

Cincinnati . . . 

Cleveland 

Columbus . . . 

Delaware 

Elyria 

Findlay 

Fremont 

Lima 

Mansfield 

Massillon 

Middletown . 

Newark 

Norwalk 

Portsmouth. 

Salem 

Sandusky. . . 
Steuben ville . 

Tiffin 

Toledo 

Urbana 



$421.04 

477.84 

130.38 

239.19 

631.34 

8,647.67 

729.12 

124.45 

118.58 

92.56 

84.30 

158.05 

194.18 

331.84 

97.92 

1,109.99 

94.46 

67.76 

71.86 

763.02 

961.99 

13,700.83 

48.36 

160.83 

185.48 

30.31 

11.13 

646.89 

81.35 

3,697.95 

121.21 

2,987.29 

496.12 

67.23 

1,696.80 

2,200.81 

1,365.87 

156.39 

88.95 

43,291.34 



43.15 

208.27 

19.39 

271.35 



384. 47 



505.11 

379.17 

8,325.85 

5,358.99 

799.45 

67.66 

90.96 
163.74 

60.79 
396.60 
684.34 
109.93 
227.34 
675.78 

63.10 
229.67 
161.50 
333.20 
504.53 
262.87 
2,941.19 
7.42 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 
Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued. 



837 



State and city. 



ohio — continued. 

Warren 

Wooster 

Youngstown 

Xenia 

Zanesville 



Total. 



Portland. 



PENNSYLVANIA. 



Allegheny 

Allentown 

Altoona 

Beaver Falls . . . 

Belief onte 

Bethlehem 

Bradford 

BHtler 

Carlisle 

Chambersburg . 

Chester 

Easton 

Erie. 



Harrisburg 

Hazleton 

Huntingdon... 

Johnstown 

Lancaster 

Lebanon 

Lock Haven. .. 
McKeesport . . . 
Mahanoy City. 

Meadville 

Newcastle 

Norristown... 

Oil City 

Philadelphia . . . 

Pittsburg 

Pittston 

Pottstown.. . 

Reading.. . 

Scranton. . 
Titus-wile."". 

Warren 

Washington .' '. - 
Wilkesbarre... 



Total . 



RHODE ISLAND. 



Providence . . 
W r oonsocket . 



Total. 



SOUTH CAROLINA. 



•Charleston. 
Greenville. 



Total . 



SOUTH DAKOTA. 



Huron 

.Sioux Falls. 



Total. 



TENNESSEE. 



•Chattanooga . 
Jackson 



Amount. 



8383.68 
414.44 
239.82 
105.77 
263.35 



23,756.25 



553.30 



7.43 

794.62 

536.84 

309.34 

33.62 

107.72 

619.79 

147.64 

767.18 

83.38 

90.50 

94.76 

.074.96 

,388.83 

200.86 

626.02 

856.53 

104.78 

40.22 

87.44 

88.95 

161.61 

413.55 

501.31 

251.41 

112.60 

888.12 

550.19 

404.39 

14.82 

847.08 

122.76 

54.78 

479.28 

246.76 

720.15 



35,831.22 



220. 43 
14.11 



234. 54 



2, 856. 49 
134.94 



2,991.43 



66.82 
2, 871. 47 



2, 938. 29 



367. 10 
43.52 



State and city. 



Tennessee— continued. 



Knioxvlle . 

Memphis . . 
Nashville . 



Total. 



Austin 

Corsicana. .. 

Dallas 

Denison 

El Paso 

Fort Worth. 
Galveston. .. 

Houston 

San Antonio . 

Sherman 

Waco 



Total: 



Salt Lake City. 



VERMONT. 



Burlington 

Montpelier. .». 

St. Albans . 

St. Johnsbury. 
Rutland 



Total. 



Charlottesville. 

Danville 

Lynchburg 

Petersburg 

Portsmouth... 
Staunton 



Total. 



WASHINGTON. 



Seattle 

Spokane 

TaLComa 

Walla Walla. 



Total. 



WEST VIRGINIA. 



Charleston . . . 
Parkersburg. 
Wheeling 



Total. 



WISCONSIN. 



Appleton 

Beloit 

Chippewa Falls. 

Eau Claire 

Janes ville 

La Crosse 

Madison 

Milwaukee 

Oshkosh 

Sheboygan 

Waukesha 



Total. 



Amount. 



$82. 21 

580. 96 

11.77 

1,085/76 



164. 55 
95.08 

207. 70 
50. 59 
54.45 

557. 09 

38.56 

52.35 

1, 164. 14 

655. 86 
97.76 

3, 138. 03 



3, 752. 23 



436. 43 
53.57 
338. 79 
116.48 
96.57 

1,041.84 



80.84 

728. 34 

1,373.15 

44.24 

714 83 

458. 61 

3, 400. 01 



. 770.98 
482. 11 
793. 99 
133. 28 

2,180.36 



501. 87 

78.17 

250. 50 

830. 54 



477. 29 
80.64 
521. 48 
854.88 
692. 84 
097. 14 
582.42 
180. 54 
931. 08 
672. 83 
84.35 



, 175. 49 



838 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Alabama ' $715. 81 

Arkansas 729. 58 

California 8, 539: 69 

Colorado : 838. 44 

Connecticut : ■ 4, 781. 69 

Delaware 285. 08 

District of Columbia 3,281. 20 

Florida . . . 665. 23 

Georgia 8, 545. 45 

Illinois ."..... 20,718.42 

Indiana 4, 595. 93. 

Iowa 9, 752. 63 

Kansas 4, 772. 71 

Kentucky .- /. . . 3, 589. 00 

Louisiana 606. 43 

Maine 1, 948. 04 

Maryland . 1, 461. 75 

Massachusetts 22, 195. 30 

Michigan 7, 384. 40 

Minnesota 4, 575. 31 

Mississippi 837. 45 

Missouri 19, 078. 12 

Montana 1, 739. 38 

Nebraska 3, 692. 36 

New Hampshire 4, 055. 38 

New Jersey 9, 702. 53 

New York 43, 291. 34 

North Carolina 271. 35 

North Dakota 384. 47 

Ohio 23, 756. 25 

Oregon 553. 50 

Pennsylvania 35, 831. 22 

Rhode Island 234. 54 

South Carolina : 2, 991. 43 

South Dakota 2, 938. 21 

Tennessee : 1, 085. 76 

Texas 3, 138. 03 

Utah 3,752.23 

Vermont 1, 041. 84 

Virginia 3, 400. 01 

Washington 2, 180. 36 

West Virginia 830. 54 

Wisconsin . , 8, 175. 49 

Total. 282,943.88 

CAMPANIA DE LOS FERROCARRILES DE PUERTO RICO. 

[Senate Report No. 3862, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, having had under consideration 
the following bill, report the same favorably without amendment, and recommend 
its passage: 

"A BILL For the relief of the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico. 

" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That jurisdiction be, and is hereby, given to the Court of Claims 
(notwithstanding any statutory bar of limitations) over the claims of the Compafiia 
de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, with power to find the facts and to enter judg- 
ment against the United States for the reasonable value of the services performed by 
said company in the island of Porto Rico for transporting the municipal police and 
guardia civille between the twelfth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety- 
eight, and the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and two, and for the 
difference between the amount allowed for transporting the troops, munitions of war, 
supplies, and the like and the reasonable value of said services for the same period, 
together with the expense of repair and maintenance of telegraph lines of the Signal 
Corps, all of said services having been performed during the military occupation of 
said island." 

The Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives has had under con- 
sideration a measure identical in character, and has favorably reported the same. 
That report, which is hereby adopted as a part of this report, is as follows: 

[House Report No. 4088, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 18304) for 
the relief of the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, having considered the 
same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. 

Prior to the military occupation of Porto Rico the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles 
de Puerto Rico had been operating its railroad for at least twelve years under a 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 839 

Spanish grant, which provided that the company had to furnish transportation of 
troops and supplies at a rate of one-fourth of the general tariff, free transportation of 
mail, and some other privileges, in compensation of which the Spanish Government 
paid to the company a subsidy of 8 per cent of the capital invested. 

The company continued to operate its lines under said Spanish grant from the 26th 
day of July, 1898, the time of the occupation of said island by the military authori- 
ties of the United States, until the 28th day of October, 1901, when a new franchise 
was granted by the executive council of Porto Rico, during which period it trans- 
ported the United States mail and municipal police under direction and authority of 
the military officers of the United States, and conducted the repair and maintenance 
of the telegraph lines, in pursuance of orders issued by the military authorities, 
without compensation, and transported the troops, munitions of war, supplies, etc., 
at one-fourth of the general tariff in force, all of which was in accordance with the 
terms of its Spanish grant, which allowed to the company a subsidy of 8 per cent of 
the capital invested. 

During the period mentioned ftie Government did not pay said subsidy, and after 
long negotiations betsveen the company and the executive council of Porto Rico the 
Spanish grant was annulled and a new franchise granted to the company October 28, 

1901, and approved by the President of the United States December 5, 1901, a copy 
of which appears in the appendix to this report. , 

This new franchise, while annulling the Spanish grant, and consequently with- 
drawing the guarantee of 8 per cent, nevertheless contains, in section 12 thereof, a 
recognition of the claim of the company against the United States for compensation 
for the transportation of mail, troops, military and police supplies, and for the repair 
and reconstruction of military telegraph lines from the day of the occupation of the 
island by the United States up to the time of the granting of the new franchise. 

At a meeting of the executive council of Porto Rico, held on the 12th day of July, 

1902, a resolution, a copy of which also appears in the appendix, was adopted, recom- 
mending the proper consideration and adjustment of the claim of the company. 

This resolution was, on July 17, 1902, transmitted by Governor Hunt to the Post- 
master-General, the governor expressing the hope that the claim of the company 
against the United States for transporting the United States mail, troops, and military 
supplies in Porto Rico "may be taken up at an early date for adjustment." He con- 
cluded his communication by stating, "I believe the company has substantial equities, 
entitled to careful consideration." 

A copy of said communication also appears in the appendix to this report. 

It appears, from a communication from the Postmaster-General to Congress, under 
date of April 2, 1906, that judgment was secured in the Court of Claims by the com- 
pany against the United States for $11,509.54 of the mail claim, and was appropri- 
ated for in the urgent deficiency bill approved February 27, 1906; also that the 
Postmaster-General recommended that the balance of said claim, amounting to 

$2,184.91, which was barred by the statute of limitations, be paid, and that on 

— , 1906, Congress by special act provided for payment of said amount. 

It appears, furthermore, that the company has brought suit in the Court of Claims 
for the remainder of its claims, to wit: 

Transportation of municipal police under direction and authority of the 

military officers of the United States $18,080.40 

Transportation of troops, munitions of war, supplies, etc.« 8, 900. 31 

Expense of repairing and maintenance of telegraph lines, etc 2, 794. 00 

Total 29, 774. 71 

But it further appears that a part of these claims will be barred by the statute of 
limitations, and the object of the bill is simply to give jurisdiction to the court to 
award judgment on the claims above mentioned, notwithstanding any statutory bar. 

In view of the fact that the bill merely gives jurisdiction to the court to hear and 
determine said suits, notwithstanding any statutory bar of limitation, and in view of 
the recommendation both of the executive council and of the governor of Porto Rico 
that these claims be taken up at an early date for adjustment, your committee recom- 
mend that the bill do pass. 



a The amount paid the company for this service wa j one-fourth of the tariff. The 
above item represents the balance of three-quarters of said general tariff due the 
company for this service. On the other items no compensation has been received 
whatever. 



840 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

An ordinance granting to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, and to its 
successors and assigns, the right to extend its railway lines to and between certain points 
in the island of Porto Rico. 

(Original has line numerals, omitted in this copy. ) 

Whereas certain differences of opinion relating to the rights, if any there are, of 
the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, under and by virtue of a charter 
or franchise heretofore granted to it by royal order or orders of the Spanish Govern- 
ment have heretofore existed between the grantee and the ■government of Porto 
Rico; and the said grantee and the government of Porto Rico, desiring permanently 
to adjust the said differences, have reached an understanding by which the said com- 
pany has agreed to release all of its rights and claims of every nature whatsoever that 
may exist against the government of Porto Rico under and by virtue of the said 
charter or franchise, and to accept this ordinance as the full evidence of its legal 
status and rights in the island of Porto Rico and as the full definition and expression 
of its legal and equitable relations to and with the government thereof: 

Now, therefore, and in order to carry out the said agreement and understanding, 
the executive council of Porto Rico does hereby ordain and enact as follows: 

Section I. That the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, a corporation 
•organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Spain, may extend its rail- 
road lines, already built and now being operated by it in the island of Porto Rico as 
a railway for the conveyance of passengers and freight, to. and between the following 
points: 

First. From San Juan to Ponce via Arecibo, Camuy, Aguadilla, Mayaguez, and 
Yauco. 

Second. From Arecibo to Lares. 

Third. From Lares to Aguadilla. 

Fourth. From Lares to Anasco. 

Fifth. From Ponce to Guayama. 

Sixth. From San Juan to Rio Grande. 

Substantially along the routes shown on the maps heretofore tiled by the said 
grantee with the executive council and duly identified by the signature thereon of 
J. C. Charpentier, manager of the said grantee. The extensions of the lines of the 
grantee herein authorized, including the building of side tracks, spurs, and branch 
roads, are matters of public interest conducing to the general welfare; they are there- 
fore hereby declared to be of public utility for all purposes, so far as the law of forcible 
expropriation may be invoked by the grantee; and the lands necessary for any exten- 
sions herein authorized or for any part thereof or for the side tracks, station, spurs, 
and branch roads connected therewith may be acquired by the grantee by pur- 
chase or by process of condemnation. 

The grantee may also extend its railroad lines from Carolina to Caguasand Naguabo; 
provided and only in case the Port America Company, to which an amended fran- 
chise has been or is about to be granted by the executive council of Porto Rico to 
build a railroad between Naguabo, Caguas, and San Juan, shall not have completed 
the line between said points, according to the terms of its said franchise, within the 
time limited therein. 

Sec. II. The gauge of said extensions shall not be less than one metre in width. 
An accurate survey of the routes of said proposed extensions, duly verified under 
oath by the surveyor and identified by the signature thereon of the secretary, gen- 
eral manager, or other superior officer of said grantee, shall be submitted to the 
-commissioner of the interior for his approval thereon before the work of building 
such extensions, or any of them, shall proceed; and likewise all plans for bridges 
and embankments and general construction of said extensions, including plans for 
grade work, roadbed, and street or road crossings, and all plans for the erection of 
stations and other structures used in connection with the operation of said extensions 
or of the lines already built, shall be subject to the approval of the commissioner of 
the interior before the work of building the same shall proceed. 

With the consent and approval of the commissioner of the interior, side tracks 
may hereafter be built at any point on the right of way of the grantee except in 
■cities, towns, and urban communities, in which cases the consent and approval of 
the executive council shall be required; nothing in this ordinance contained shall be 
held or construed to give to the grantee the right to appropriate or use either for its 
main tracks or any switch or side track, spur, or branch any portion of the public 
highway or other public property without the consent of the executive council first 
had and obtained; but no royalty or compensation shall be exacted from the grantee 
for such consent; and the consent of the executive council shall not be required in 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 841 

order to permit the trains of the grantee to pass over that portion of the tracks of 
W. 8. H. Lothrop (grantee under a certain franchise heretofore granted to him hy 
the executive council for an electric street-car line in the city of' Ponce), which lie 
on the public highway between Ponce and Ponce Playa. The said grantee, with the 
consent of the commissioner of the interior and of the owners of the abutting prop- 
erty, may build branch roads not exceeding 1 mile in length to sugar centrals or 
warehouses on sugar plantations; but this right shall not be held to give to the 
grantee the right to build any such branch road connecting its main track with any 
city, town, or urban community without the special consent of the executive council. 

In all cases where the line of any extension, switch, or branch track herein con- 
templated, or which may hereafter be made, shall cross a public highway a plan and 
specifications for such crossing shall first be submitted to the commissioner of the 
interior for his approval; and thereafter during the entire period of this franchise 
the said grantee shall keep such crossings in a condition satisfactory to the commis- 
sioner of the interior, and make such changes, improvements, and alterations in such 
crossings as may from time to time be required by the commissioner of the interior; 
and upon the failure of the said grantee to keep such crossings or any of them in 
such repair, and upon its failure to make such changes and alterations therein as may 
be directed, the commissioner of the interior may make such repairs or such changes 
and alterations, and the expense thereof shall be charged as a first lien upon all of 
the property of the said grantee, to be enforced as other liens are enforced. 

Sec. III. The said extensions, as well as the lines already in operation, may be 
run by steam ' or electric power, but any plans for changing the operation of said 
extensions or the said present lines of said grantee, or any of them, from steam to 
electric power shall be submitted to the commissioner of the interior for his approval 
before the said change shall be made. 

Sec. IV. Upon the acceptance by the grantee of this franchise it shall be taken 
and deemed to be one franchise covering the lines already built and in operation by 
said grantee, as well as the extensions thereof herein contemplated and authorized; 
and with respect to the lines of railway already built and in operation, as well as 
with respect to the said extensions hereafter to be built under the terms hereof, the 
respective rights, duties, and obligations of the grantee and of the government of 
Porto Rico shall depend upon and rest solely in the terms and conditions hereof; 
and the duration of this franchise so taken and deemed to be one franchise covering 
the lines now built and hereafter to be built as herein authorized shall be one hun- 
dred and fifty years from the date hereof. 

Sec. V. The said grantee shall be exempt from all insular and municipal or local 
taxation of every name and nature for a period of twenty-five years from the date of 
the acceptance by it of this grant: Provided, howver, That said exemption shall not 
become effective or operative until the legislative assembly of Porto Rico shall by 
law duly authorize such exemption. 

Sec. VI. The charge for the transportation of passengers on the lines of the said 
grantee shall not exceed five (5) cents per mile, and all charges for the transporta- 
tion of freight and passengers shall be subject to such regulation, revision, amend- 
ment, change, or alteration as the executive council from time to time may require. 
The rules and regulations of said grantee for the operation of said railway lines shall 
also be subject to such revision, amendment, change, or alteration as may from time 
to time be required by law. 

Sec VII. The said grantee may erect and maintain a telegraph and telephone line 
upon and along its right of way to be used by it for the operation of its railway 
lines and for no other purpose; said telegraph and telephone lines shall not be open 
to use by the public either for profit or otherwise. Upon the consent, however, of 
the executive council, through the commissioner of the interior, the said telegraph 
line may be opened to public use for hire upon the condition that the governor, 
members of the executive council, and chief heads of departments shall have the 
right, free of cost, of sending messages and receiving replies relating to public busi- 
ness over said lines, and upon such other terms and*conditions as may be prescribed 
by the executive council. And likewise the said telephone line may be opened to the 
public for hire or otherwise upon the consent of the executive council, through the 
commissioner of the interior, upon such terms and conditions as the executive council 
may provide. 

The said company shall not have the power to permit the use of its said telegraph 
and telephone poles and wires, or to permit the use of its right of way for the erection 
of telegraph or telephone wires, by any person, firm, corporation, or other legal 
entity, natural or artificial, whatsoever, except upon such terms and conditions as 



842 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 

the executive council through the commissioner of the interior may require: Provided, 
That said guarantee may permit the use of its said telegraph or telephone lines to any 
person, firm, company, corporation, or legal entity having a franchise from the 
government of Porto Rico for doing a public telegraph or telephone business; but 
such use of said lines shall be subject to the royalty and other duties and obligations 
provided in any such franchise. At any time, however, the commissioner of the 
interior of Porto Rico, without compensation to the said grantee, may erect upon its 
right of way such poles and lines as may, in the judgment of the commissioner of the 
interior, be necessary or desirable for the operation of a telegraph service in connection 
with the insular telegraph lines; said telegraph lines so erected on said right of way 
to be the sole property of the insular government, which shall be entitled to receive 
all the profits arising from the use thereof. Said commissioner of the interior, through 
his employees, shall have access to said telegraph lines at all times for making 
repairs and for other purposes. And upon the erection of such telegraph lines by 
the commissioner of the interior on said right of way, the use of its own telegraph 
lines by the public for hire or otherwise shall at once be stopped by the grantee. 

Sec. VIII. The said grantee shall transport free of charge on all of its lines, to and 
from the courts and prisons of the island, prisoners awaiting trial or who have been 
convicted of offenses against the penal code or police regulations, or prisoners whom 
it is desired to transfer from one prison to another, together with such police or 
other guards as may be reasonably necessary to guard the prisoners on such journeys; 
provided that such prisoners and guards are furnished with a statement by a judge 
of a court certifying that the said prisoners are needed in court or that they have 
been convicted and are on their way to prison. 

Sec. IX. The executive council of Porto Rico, under and by virtue of the authority 
of an act of the legislative assembly of Porto Rico entitled "An act to empower the 
executive council in its discretion to enter into a lease with the Compani'ade los Fer- 
rocarriles de Puerto Rico," approved January 31, 1901, does hereby demise and lease 
unto the said Companfa de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico and its successors and 
assigns, for a term of fifty (50) years from the date hereof, and in consideration of 
an annual rent reserved, during the life of said term of.fifty years, of one dollar for 
the first ten years, commencing January 1st, 1902, and thereafter of seven hundred 
and fifty dollars ($750) yearly, payable to the treasurer of Porto Rico during the 
month of January of each and every year during the balance of said term, the parcels 
of real estate mentioned and particularly described in said act being situated within 
the city of San Juan, one parcel being known and designated as Manzana No. 14 
upon the maps of the board of public works, said parcel being bounded by calle E 
on the north, calle D on the south, calle L on the east, and calle M on the west; 
and its dimensions being 67.5 meters, more or less, by 70 meters, more or less, and 
its area 4,725 square meters, more or less, the other parcel of land being described as 
follows: 

Beginning at a point formed by the intersection of the east side of calle C and 
the south side of calle D, said point' being approximately 21.01 meters from the 
southwest corner of part E of Manzana No. 13, and 24.33 meters from the southeast 
corner of lot A, now occupied by the factory of the American Tobacco Company; 
thence following the south side of calle D in an easterly direction for a distance of 
161.07 meters to calle L; thence at right angles to the last line in a southerly direc- 
tion following the west side of calle L for a distance of 35 meters; thence at right 
angles to the last line in a westerly direction for a distance of 149.7 meters to the 
east side of calle C, and thence back to the point of beginning, a distance of 36.78 
meters — the whole containing an area of 5,438.47 square meters, more or less, of 
which 420 square meters appertain to calle M, together with any building or build- 
ings situate thereon. 

Both of said parcels of land, before being taken possession of by the grantee, shall 
be surveyed and properly located by some surveyor designated by the commissioner 
of the interior, the cost thereof to be borne by the grantee. 

The area designated as calle M'on the maps on file in the office of the commissioner 
of the interior may be occupied by the grantee by buildings of a temporary nature, 
but the right to remove said buildings without cost to the government of Porto Rico, 
and at any time to open said street as a public highway, is reserved. 

Upon said two parcels of land the grantee may erect such warehouses, stations, 
and other terminal facilities as it may desire, first submitting the plans thereof to 
the commissioner of the interior for his approval, except that upon that portion of 
the parcel last described lying within 20 meters of the present water front no 
buildings shall be erected; it being expressly understood, however, that on the said 
portion so lying within 20 meters of the present water front, as well as on the 
strip of 7 meters in width extending from the water front to the said second 
parcel of land, the grantee may ei'ect a shed or other covering suitable for protecting 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 843 

merchandise from the elements while being loaded or unloaded, until such time as 
the executive council, through the commissioner of the interior, shall deem its 
removal necessary. 

The income arising from the warehouses and other buildings erected by the grantee 
upon the said two parcels of land hereinbefore described shall accrue to the grantee. 
The wharfage and docking rates and fees to be fixed from time to time by the execu- 
tive council, which shall not exceed the sum of fifty (50) dollars for each day or for 
a fraction of a day for each vessel, and to be paid by the owner or agents of vessels 
for the privilege of loading and discharging cargoes in front of the property herein 
demised, shall be collected by the grantee and paid over to the treasurer of Porto 
Rico for the use and benefit of the government thereof in accordance with such rules 
and regulations and at such times as he may from time to time direct: Prodded, 
however, That while the control of the said water front hereby given to the grantee 
shall rest in the grantee; the grantee shall by suitable rules and regulations, approved 
by the executive council and subject to alteration or amendment by the executive 
council, permit the use of said water front to all vessels, it being expressly agreed 
and understood that no wharfage charges shall be required to be paid by any vessel 
for the discharge upon said water front of coal or other railroad supplies which shall 
be the property of the grantee. 

The grantee, upon plans approved by the commissioner of the interior, may lay 
railroad tracks over any part of the parcels of land above described, and over any 
part of the highway of seven meters in width reserved along the present water line 
as shown upon maps in the office of the commissioner of the interior; provided that 
the use of the said twenty meters of land lying between the water front and the 
building line hereinbefore established, including the said highway of seven meters 
in width, shall be subject to such rules and regulations as the commissioner of the 
interior may prescribe. 

At any time after the date hereof, and in order to facilitate the landing of vessels 
and the unloading of their cargoes, the grantee may build and erect along the said 
entire water frontage wooden dolphins or a wooden pier extending out into the 
waters of the harbor for a distance not exceeding twenty (20) feet from the present 
shore line; said pier to be erected in accordance with plans and specifications to be 
submitted to and approved by the commissioner of the interior before the work 
thereon shall proceed; and thereafter the said pier shall be maintained by the 
grantee in such state of repair as the commissioner of the interior may require. In 
case of the erection of such a pier the grantee, subject to all the terms hereof, may 
extend over it the shed or covering heretofore in section 9 referred to. 

Upon the termination of the lease of the two parcels of land hereinbefore described 
the government of Porto Rico shall pay to the grantee the reasonable value at that 
time of the materials composing said pier, apart from and excluding this franchise as 
an element in the value thereof, unless an extension of said lease is then agreed 
upon. But nothing herein in this franchise contained shall prevent the government 
of Porto Rico at any time and without compensation to the grantee from entering 
upon any improvement of its harbor or any part thereof and from resuming posses- 
sion of the water front for that purpose. 

Sec. X. The executive council agrees so soon as it may be convenient after the 
acceptance hereof by the grantee to enter upon an' examination of the title to such 
land in the city of San Juan as heretofore may have been designated by the Gov- 
ernment of Spain as a site for a station of the said grantee in said city; and if it shall 
appear upon such examination that any such land by right and in equity belongs to 
the grantee, the executive council will admit the title of the grantee thereto in fee 
simple, so far as such admission may be made without prejudice to the rights of third 
persons. 

Sec. XL The franchise herein granted shall be accepted by the grantee by writing 
riled with the executive council within sixty (60) days after the approval thereof by 
the governor of Porto Rico. The work of constructing such extensions shall begin 
within sixty (60) days after the date of such acceptance, and within one year there- 
after the grantee shall complete and have in operation, including its present main 
line, but excluding all side tracks, spurs, and switches attached thereto, not less than 
one hundred and forty (140) miles of railway, of which at least thirteen (13) miles 
shall be on the line of the new proposed extension from San Juan to Ponce Playa via 
Arecibo, Mayaguez, and Yauco; and within four years after the date of said accept- 
ance the grantee shall complete said extension from Mayaguez to Ponce, and shall 
also complete the said extension from Arecibo to Lares; the right to build said last 
two extensions to be forfeited upon the failure of the grantee to complete them within 
the time herein limited. 

This franchise and all the rights, benefits, and advantages thereunder, so far as it 
relates to the extensions herein contemplated and authorized, shall, upon the failure 



844 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

of the grantee within eight (8) years after the date hereof to complete all such 
extensions, be forfeited ipso facto and without notice or resort to legal proceedings: 
Provided, however, That such forfeiture shall not extend to or affect such portions of 
the said extensions as shall have been fully completed between important towns in 
the line thereof, it being expressly understood and agreed that as to all the require- 
ments herein contained time is of the essence of this grant. 

Sec. XII. In consideration of the granting of this franchise the Companfa de los 
Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico does hereby release and forever discharge the United 
States and the people of Porto Rico and the government thereof from all claims and 
demands of whatsoever nature that heretofore or hereafter may accrue to it under 
and by virtue of the terms of any charter or royal franchise heretofore granted to it 
by the Spanish Government. 

And in further consideration thereof the grantee agrees that the said royal charter 
or franchise and all the terms and conditions thereof may be taken and deemed to 
be absolutely null and void and of no effect from the date hereof; and that this 
franchise -shall be taken and deemed to be the sole evidence of the property rights of 
the grantee in the island of Porto Rico and as the sole evidene of its contractual 
relations and obligations with the government thereof. It is expressly understood, 
however, that nothing herein contained shall be taken or deemed to be a waiver or 
release by the grantee of its claim against the Government of the United States for 
reasonable compensation for the transportation of mail, troops, and military and 
police supplies, and for the repairing and reconstruction of military telegraph lines 
from the date of the Occupation of the island by the United States to the present 
time. 

Sec. XIII. The term "grantee," as herein used, shall extend to and include the 
grantee, his successor, and assigns- and in case of the transfer of its property 
by the grantee, either by its own act or by act of law, the purchaser or assignee 
shall be bound by all the terms and conditions hereof of every name and nature. 
It is expressly understood and agreed that all the property interests and rights of the 
grantee, including this franchise and all the benefits and advantages accruing there- 
under, but excluding any charter or franchise granted by royal order or degree, as 
hereinbefore mentioned, may be assigned, sold, transferred, and set over unto the 
railroad company, association, or corporation the organization of which, under the 
laws of one of the States of the United States, is now contemplated for the express 
purpose of taking over this franchise and the property rights of the grantee. In case 
of any legislation modifying or altering the form of goverment for the island of Porto 
Rico all the rights, privileges, duties, and discretions herein reserved to the execu- 
tive council shall be performed, exercised, executed, and become the joint duty of 
the governor and the heads of the several departments of government; and in case 
of such modification or change by subsequent legislation, the rights, duties, discre- 
tions, and obligations reserved herein to the commissioner of the interior shall be 
performed by that officer of the insular government whose duties most nearly corre- 
spond to the duties of the commissioner of the interior. 

Sec. XIV. The franchise herein granted and all of the privileges and conces- 
sions herein contained shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal. 
No stock or bonds shall be issued by said grantee except in exchange for actual 
cash or property at a fair valuation equal in amount to the par value of the 
stock or bonds issued. No stock or bond dividends shall be declared or paid. 
And the government of Porto Rico may purchase or take the property of the 
grantee at a fair and reasonable valuation. 

Sec. XV. This ordinance shall not be valid or become operative until approved 
by the President of the United States. 

Sec. XVI. The ordinance enacted by the executive council on the twelfth day 
of July, 1901, granting a substantially similar franchise to the grantee, is hereby 
repealed, this ordinance being enacted and intended as a substitute therefor. 

Done in open session of the executive council of Porto Rico this twenty-eighth dav 
of October, 1901. 



Approved this day of October, 1901. 



President of the Executive Council. 



Governor of Porto Rico. 



Office of the Secretary, 

Sun Juan, — , 19, — . 

I, , secretary of Porto Rico, do hereby certify that the foregoing- is a 

true copy of an ordinance entitled "An ordinance granting to the Compania de los 
Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico and to its successors and assigns the right to extend its 
railway lines to and between certain points in the island of Porto Rico," approved 
by the governor of Porto Rico on the 28th day of October, 1901, as the said grant 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 845 

appears upon the record of the minutes of the proceedings of the executive council 
of Porto Rico at a meeting held on the said 28th day of October, A. D. 1901. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the great seal of Porto Rico, 
at the capital, on this day of , in the year of our Lord 190-. 



Secretary of Porto Rico. 



Executive Mansion, San Juan, July 17, 1902. 
The Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a resolution of the executive council of 
Porto Rico, expressing a hope that the claim of the Compania delos Ferrocarriles de 
Puerto Rico against the Government of the United States for transporting United 
States mail, troops, and military supplies in Porto Rico may be taken up at an early 
date for adjustment. 
I believe that the company has substantial equities entitled to careful consideration. 
Very respectfully, 

Wm. H. Hunt, Governor. 



Whereas the executive council of Porto Rico is informed that considerable sums 
of money are due to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States for its services in transporting United States mail, 
troops, police, and military supplies from point to point in the island by the railroad 
during the period following the military occupation of said island by the United 
States up to the present time; and that other sums are due by the United States to 
said company for the repair and reconstruction, during the same period, of the mili- 
tary telegraph line on and adjacent to the right of way of said company : Therefore 
be it 

Resolved by the executive council of Porto Rico, That the attention of the Postmaster- 
General of the United States and of the Congress'of the United States be called by this 
government to the said claim, with an expression of the hope on the part of this 
government that the said claim will be taken up at an early date for adjustment. 

Be it further resolved, That in the opinion of the executive council it would tend 
to the general welfare of the island if a definite contract were entered into by the 
Post-Om ce Department of the United States with the said company for the carrying 
of the United States mail in the island of Porto Rico to and between the various 
cities and municipalities along the line of its railroad upon such terms as may seem 
reasonable, in view of the conditions now existing in this island. 

Resolved further, That this matter be referred, and a copy of this resolution be 
transmitted to the governor of Porto Rico, with the request .that he will, in such way 
as he may deem best, lay the matter before the Postmaster-General and such other 
Federal authorities as may be necessary, to the end that the claim of the company 
may have proper consideration and adjustment. 

Approved by the executive council July 12, 1902. • 

Chas. Hortzell, 
President Executive Council. 

Attest: 

Chas. H. Magee, Chief Clerk. 



[Senate Document No. 300, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] 

Post-Office Department, 
Office of the Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, Aprils, 1906. 

Sir: It is noticed that on the 31st of March last the House of Representatives passed 
the bill (H. R. 11976) for the relief of the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto 
Rico, appropriating $13,694.45 " for compensation for mail service performed in 
Porto Rico during the period of military occupation in the years 1898, 1899, 1900, 
1901, and 1902, and prior to the regular authorization of railroad mail service upon 
its lines. " 

On December 7, 1903, the Secretary of the Treasury transmitted to the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives, for the consideration of Congress, a copy of the com- 
munication from the Postmaster-General, inclosing copies of papers and correspond- 
ence in the matter of this claim and submitting an estimate of appropriation in the 
sum above named as the equitable sum to which the company jwas entitled for the 
service in question. (H. Doc. No. 34, 58th Cong., 2d sess.) 



846 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The bill above referred to was reported to the House in accordance therewith, 
but no further immediate action was taken. Thereafter, on June 20, 1905, the rail- 
road company filed a petition in the Court of Claims, cause No. 28081, making claim 
for the same amount which had been theretofore submitted to this Department, but 
which had been, upon careful consideration, reduced by the office of the Second 
Assistant Postmaster-General to the amount above named. When the cause came 
up for hearing it was noted that the statute of limitations had operated against part 
of the claim as theretofore admitted to be due, and consequently a new estimate of 
the amount to which the claimant was entitled to judgment was made, which amount 
was found to be $11,509.54. On January 29, 1906, the Court of Claims rendered judg- 
ment in favor of the claimant for said amount. 

I have theretofore to suggest that inasmuch as the company has a judgment for 
$11,509.54, the House bill should be amended by the Senate to carry only the differ- 
ence between such amount and the orginal sum to be found due, $13,694.45; that is, 
$2,184.91, provided the Senate deems it proper to make such appropriation. 
Very respectfully, 

Geo. B. Cortelyou, 

Postmaster- General. 

The President of the Senate, 

Washington, D. C. 



Private Act No. . 

AN ACT For relief of the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rieo. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and directed to pay to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, 
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two thou- 
sand one hundred and eighty-four dollars and ninety-one cents, being for compensation 
for mail service performed in Porto' Rico during the period of military occupation 
in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-eiyht, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, 
nineteen hundred and one, and nineteen hundred and two, and prior to the regular 
authorization of railroad mail service upon its lines. 

Approved, April 24, 1906. 

The following is the report of the War Department in response to a request for its 
comment with respect to the proposed legislation: 

[First indorsement.] 

War Department, 
Office of the Quartermaster-General, 

Washington, April 19, 1906. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War with the information that on June 
27, 1903, these claims were submitted to the Secretary of War with recommendation 
that papers be referred to the Judge- Advocate-General of the Army for decision as 
to whether the additional compensation for transportation claimed by the carriers 
could legally be allowed, and were returned by the Secretary of War with press copy 
of his communication to Messrs. Hoadley, Lauterbach & Johnson, of New York City; 
also inclosed opinion of the Judge- Advocate-General, in wdiich he states that no addi- 
tional compensation on the island of Porto Rico for troops and military supplies 
carried by this line between July 26, 1898, and July 1, 1903, could be legally made, 
and that at no time had funds of the Quartermaster's Department been chargeable 
with the transportation of the police of the island of Porto Rico. 

All papers in the claim were on February 19, 1906, transmitted to the Department 
of Justice, through the Chief Signal Officer, U. S. Army, upon request of the Depart- 
ment of Justice of February 14, 1906. 

C. F. Humphrey, 
Quartermaster- General U. S. Army. 

[Second indorsement.] 

War Department, April 21, 1906. 
Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto 
Rico, United States Senate, inviting attention to the foregoing report of the Quarter- 
master-General of the Army. 

Robert Shaw Oliver, 

Assistant Secretary of War. 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 847 

AMENDMENT TO GENERAL DEFICIENCY BILL. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom the foregoing amendment was referred, having 
amended the same, report favorably and recommend its passage without amendment. 

In support of the foregoing report the committee beg leave to refer to the report of 
the committee on this claim (Senate Report No. 490, Fifty-eighth Congress) and 
Senate document No. 93, Sixtieth Congress. 

[To accompany amendment for relief of owners of str. "Nicarauga."] 

MINNESOTA AND ONTARIO BRIDGE COMPANY. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom Senate bill 3778 was referred, having examined 
the same, report favorably thereon and recommend its passage without amendment. 

During the year 1901 the Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Company was engaged in 
building a bridge across Rainy River on the boundary line between Minnesota and 
Canada. The contract for building the bridge had been awarded to Messrs. Mackenzie, 
Mann & Co., a Canadian firm in no manner connected with the bridge company. The 
contract for getting out the piling was let by Mackenzie, Mann & Co. to Cameron Bros. 
& Finley, in no way connected with the firm of Mackenzie, Mann & Co. or the bridge 
company. 

It appears that Special Agent McEnery discovered that the timber delivered by 
Messrs. Cameron Bros. & Finley and used in the substructure to said bridge was cut 
from land embraced in the ceded Red Lake Indian Reservation; that he made hie 
examination in the summer of 1901 and found that 104,600 feet had been cut ; that 1,577 
piles, amounting to 77,892 linear feet, had been used and left in the abutments and 
piers of said bridge; that this timber standing was worth 2\ cents per linear foot; at the 
place where used was worth 6 cents per linear foot, amounting to $6,276 at the latter 
price; that thereafter and in 1904 claim for the first time was made against the bridge 
company for this timber; that in the meantime Messrs. Cameron Bros. & Finley had 
disappeared, and no one seems to know where they are or whether they are responsible, 
except that they are reported by the Government agent as financially irresponsible. 

In view of these facts, the committee think that the bridge company ought to be 
relieved from paying the second time for this timber. 

SAMUEL LEE ET AL. 

Your Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 850) making 
appropriation to pay to the legal representatives of the estate of Samuel Lee, deceased, 
to wit, Samuel Lee, Anna Lee Andrews, Clarence Lee, Harry A. Lee, and Philip Lee, 
heirs at law, in full for any claim for pay and allowances made by reason of the election 
of said Lee to the Forty-seventh Congress and his services therein, having had the 
same under consideration report it back to the Senate with the recommendation that 
it do pass. 

The Committee on Claims of the House, reporting favorably this bill, made the fol- 
lowing statement in reference thereto : 

"It appears that in the election of a Representative to Congress from the First dis- 
trict of South Carolina in 1882 the face of the returns indicated the election of John 
S. Richardson, but a contest for the seat was entered by Samuel Lee. The contest 
was referred to the Committee on Elections in the Forty-seventh Congress, and sub- 
sequently, when the case was being considered by the House, the House voted, by 
a vote of 124 to 114, that Richardson was not elected and entitled to have or hold a 
seat as Representative from the said district, and that Lee was duly elected and 
entitled to have and hold said seat. 

"At this point dilatory tactics were employed by the minority, which were kept up 
until the expiration of said Congress, which prevented Lee from taking his seat. 

"The House having by a decisive affirmative vote declared Lee entitled to the seat 
in question, and he having been prevented purely by dilatory tactics of the minority 
from taking his seat, we are of the opinion that an injustice was done Lee, and con- 
sequently we believe the bill should pass. 

"The proceedings relative to this contest are to be found in volume 14, part 4, page 
3752 et seq., of the Congressional Record, Forth-seventh Congress. 11 ' 

H. R. KING. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Senate bill 1702, having examined 
the same, report the same favorably and recommend its passage without amendment. 



848 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

It appears that the claimant cut some timber upon certain Indian lands in the 
State of Minnesota; that he entered into a contract with a proper official, subject to 
the approval of the Indian Office; that before the cutting had been done the Indian 
Office formally disapproved the cutting. The claimant claims that the Indian agent 
informed him that the special agent in charge of the reservation understood that the 
contracts were to be approved, and relying on this hearsay information, he went on 
and cut the timber. He paid for the timber under the contract price, but the Depart- 
ment insisted on making a claim as for trespass in excess of the price agreed to be 
paid and which was paid. Under the circumstances it seems manifestly unjust to 
punish the claimant by enforcing the penalty. 

ESTATE OF AARON VAN CAMP AND VIRGINIA P. CHAPIN. 

Your committee has thoroughly examined and considered the facts connected 
with this claim. While it is true that the claim is an old one, yet it is not the fault 
of the claimants, as they have constantly for more than a half century pressed for 
payment both before the courts and Congress, as the facts hereinafter stated will show. 

Your committee has examined Senate Document No. 156, first session of the present 
Congress, and finds that it contains a correct and fair statement of the facts connected 
with the claim. We have therefore added it as an exhibit to our report, Exhibit A. 

In addition to said Senate Document No. 156. we have examined Senate report 
(Senate Report No. 4386) made by Mr. Warren, chairman of the Committee on Claims 
at the third session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, and find that it contains additional 
facts that ought to be placed before Congress. Therefore, we have adopted the same 
and also made it a part of this report, marked Exhibit B. 

This claim, covered by Senate bill No. 391, now pending before this committee, 
has been placed in H. R. 15372 as an amendment, which we now report "favorably 
and recommend that the same do pass. 

Exhibit A. 

Memorial to Congress of the Washington Loan and Trust Company, as the administrator of 
the estate of Aaron Van Camp, deceased. 

Your memorialist respectfully states that it was duly appointed by the supreme court 
of the District of Columbia, and is now acting as the administrator of said estate; that 
the claim of said estate, coupled with the claim of the representatives of the estate of 
Virginius P. Chapin, who was a partner of said Van Camp, was duly presented to the 
Court of Claims under an act of Congress approved February 3, 1903, and the facts found 
by said court on the 11th day of January, 1904, the case being numbered 23193. The 
court found, in substance, that by reason of the wrongful acts of the consular agent of 
the United States at the Navigator Islands, one Jonathan S. Jenkins, the parties herein 
named (Van Camp and Chapin) were despoiled of their property to the extent of $60,100. 
Of this amount, the estate represented by your memorialist would be duly entitled to 
$38,750. A bill has been introduced and is now pending in the Senate for the relief of 
these two estates, to wit, Senate bill 391. 

The object of your memorialist herein is to respectfully ask favorable action, and to 
that end submits the following statement: 

This claim originated at Apia, Navigator Islands, in the year 1856, by reason of the 
alleged wrongful and unlawful acts of Jonathan S. Jenkins, consular agent of the United 
States at that place. 

Said Jenkins wrongfully and unlawfully, in his official capacity, in the name of the 
United States and under printed forms of law, organized and established a so-called 
"consular court" at Apia. Said unlawful "consular court" was created and estab- 
lished with the foreknowledge, tacit consent, and sanction of the State Department 
(Secretary Marcy), under the act of Congress approved August 11, 1848, which gives 
extraterritorial jurisdiction to the United States consuls in China and the Ottoman 
Port, by means of which said Jenkins, as commercial agent of the United States and 
presiding judge of the' so-called "consular court," caused the loss and damage to claim- 
ants as shown by the eleventh and thirteenth findings of fact by the Court of Claims in 
this case. 

The claimants were both ex-officers of the United States, men of good character and 
worthy citizens, as appears from the findings of the Court of Claims and the official 
report on this subject made in the year 1856 by Commodore William Mervine, U. S. 
Navy, at the request of the proper Department. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 849 

Owing to the location, surroundings, and situation of the parties, they were absolutely 
helpless as to means to protect themselves against the wrongful acts of said consular 
agent and his unlawful "court." The consular agent acted in the name of the United 
States. Neither thelocal authorities nor the representatives of foreign governments 
would interfere to protect a citizen of the United States under such circumstances, 
especially when they had the right to assume that the United States officer at Apia was 
acting within his legal authority. To reach the United States and seek protection 
therein in time to restrain and prevent the wrongful acts being done by Agent Jenkins 
was not possible. At that time (1856) no steam vessels ran to said islands, and sailing 
vessels would take six months time to reach San Francisco, the nearest port in the 
United States. Consequently the claimants and their property were absolutely at the 
mercy of the agent of the United States and his so-called "United States consular 
court. ' ' But this illegal tribunal was established with the knowledge and tacit consent 
of the State Department. Notice was given the Secretary of State that it was to be 
created . Jenkins was also advised by the United States district attorney for the district 
of California (Mr. Inge) that he was authorized to establish such a court. All this will 
appear in the eleventh finding of fact by said Court of Claims. 

As soon as possible after being thus despoiled of their property claimants returned to 
their country to seek redress. Soon after their return they applied to the State Depart- 
ment, that had sanctioned, by its silence, the exercise of the illegal authority exercised 
by the consular agent. They were advised that they must first exhaust their remedy 
in the courts before they applied to the Government to reimburse them for said losses. 
Upon this advice claimants instituted suit against said Jenkins in the proper court in the 
District of Columbia, and upon trial judgment was rendered , upon the verdict of a jury, 
against said Jenkins for the aggregate sum of $126,637. Execution was issued and 
returned "wholly unsatisfied." Thereupon claimants again applied to the State 
Department for relief, and were advised to apply to Congress. Again, acting upon 
the advice of the Department, they memorialized Congress for redress. Upon a full 
investigation by the Committee on Claims in the Thirty-fifth Congress (1859), while 
the facts were comparatively fresh, they reported favorably, recommending Congress 
to pay the amount as fixed by the circuit court in said District. No further action was 
taken by that Congress. In the Thirty-sixth Congress (1860) favorable reports were 
made by both Senate and House committees, but no further action was taken. Then 
came the civil war, and the claim remained dormant until 1866, with no definite action 
until 1886, when a committee of Congress sent the matter to the Court of Claims under 
the act of March 3, 1883. 

The further history of the claim is fully set forth in Senate Report No. 1307, made by 
Senator Warren, from the Committee on Claims, at the second session Fifty-fifth Con- 
gress. The following is an extract from said report: 

"Your committee have examined into the history of said claim since the acts com- 
plained of occurred and find that the claimants petitioned Congress for redress, and 
at the second session Thirty-fifth Congress the Hon. Miles Taylor, from the Com- 
mittee (H. R.) on Claims, made a favorable (No. 212) report, recommending that the 
Government of the United States pay the amount of said losses. No further action 
was taken during said Congress. 

"At the first session Thirty-sixth Congress Mr. Ely, from the Committee on Claims, 
on May 25, 1860, made House Report No. 569, recommending that the United States 
Government pay said losses, and on March 21, 1860, at the first session Thirty-sixth 
Congress Mr. Iverson made Senate Report No. 148, recommending that the United 
States pay said losses. 

"Your committee have not discovered any further action on the part of Congress 
until about June, 1886, when the Committee on Claims (H. R.) ordered the petition 
of said claimants to be transferred to the Court of Claims under the act of March 3, 
1883; said petitioners claimed that they had suffered a loss of over $126,000 by reason 
of the acts of the officers of the United States. Upon a hearing before the Court of 
Claims the aggregated loss was fixed by said court at $60,100, but they did not pass 
upon the liability of the Government because of the want of jurisdiction." 

Upon hearing the case, the court certified its findings of fact to the House of Repre- 
sentatives on January 18, 1891 (see Misc. Doc. No. 81), but no action was taken by 
Congress. 

The claimants have been continuously before Congress since it was so certified until 
last year, when, by act of Congress approved February 6, 1903, Congress again sent it 
to the Court of Claims, giving it both law and equity jurisdiction. 

Under this act the court, on January 11, 1904 (Court Calendar No. 23193), decided 
the case by dismissing the petition. They again found the facts and fixed the losses 
sustained by claimants to be the same, to wit, $60,100, as found in their former decision, 
and now named in the bill under consideration. The court in deciding the case 

S. Rep. 382. 60-1 54 



850 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

refused to exercise the "'equity" jurisdiction conferred upon them by said act. They 
gave as a reason for finding the less amount, to wit, $60,100, as the loss sustained, 
instead of the amount fixed in the District of Columbia, the following: 

"That much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to prove the loss and value 
of the property consists of ex parte affidavits, letters, and documents which are not 
legally competent . ' ' 

It appears that some of the witnesses sworn in the circuit court of the said district of 
Columbia, which fixed the loss at $126,637, were dead, or could not be produced in the 
Court of Claims more than twenty years afterwards. Consequently claimant had to 
rely to an extent upon the "ex parte affidavits, letters, and documents" that had been 
taken and brought from the Navigator Islands, all of which the court ignored. Claim- 
ants acquiesced in the reduction because of the situation. This claim, in one sense, 
is one resting upon strong equities. The United States, by its silence and nonaction, 
not only allowed its own officer to do the wrongful acts, but by the acts of its said officers, 
so far as possible, confirmed and ratified said wrongdoing, and benefited thereby to the 
extent of allowing said Jenkins in his final settlement with the Government to charge 
himself with and retain $530.96-of the money wrongfully wrung from claimants. This 
will appear in the thirteenth finding of fact made by the court. The United States 
appointed an agent and placed him in the position, with knowledge of the intended 
exercise of authority not justified by law. While the act of Congress approved Febru- 
ary 6, 1903, gave the court both "law" and "equity" jurisdiction, it found that the 
legal rules governing it, both as to law and equity, forbade it from taking jurisdiction 
and rendering judgment upon its clear findings of facts. But at the same time the 
court indicates the moral obligations of the United States in the premises and refers the 
claimants, in the following words, to Congress for relief: 

"If by the provisions it is intended that the court shall pass upon the ethical question 
whether the United States should assume responsibility for the acts of one of their 
officers in a distant region of the earth of a most flagitious character whereby citizens 
of the United States suffered great wrongs and injury, it must be answered that courts 
are not established to determine ethical questions, and that such a question as this 
one presents is not one for judicial determination, but one for the exercise of legisla- 
tive discretion." 

Consequently, for the third time, claimants are referred to Congress. 

The claimants, nearly fifty years ago, sustained damage, as evidenced by the judg- 
ment of record in the court in the District of Columbia, of $126,637. Doctor Van Camp, 
all his life, was a resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. Chapin resided in Virginia — 
that part now known as West Virginia. Both are dead. They spent nearly half a 
century, and, it is claimed, about all of their yearly income in and about their efforts 
to collect this claim, and the heirs have taken up the burden and only ask the amount 
$60,000, twice found by the Court of Claims, as the sum to be paid by somebody, it 
being less than half of the judgment as above set forth, rendered soon after the injurious 
acts were committed. If this $60,000 had been invested at an interest of only 3 per 
cent, the interest alone (without compounding it) for fifty years would be $90,000. 
Two lives and two fortunes have been wasted — lost — by reason of the nonaction and 
silence of the United States Government. The Court of Claims declares: 

"The nonresponse (to Jenkins's letter) of the Secretary * * * shows a very lax 
administration on the part of the State Department, incompatible with good govern- 
ment and an honest administration in the consular office." 

Yet the court holds that although the Department "showed a very lax administra- 
tion incompatible with good government and an honest administration in the consular 
office " * * * it does ' ' not imply a sanction of the abuses which the consular officer 
perpetrated." Was not this "lax administration" and "incompatible with good gov- 
ernment and an honest administration of the consular office" responsible for all the 
wrongdoing of the consul in the premises: the loss and damage sustained by the claim- 
ants by reason of the said acts? It certainly would not have occurred if the State 
Department had discharged its duty. 

The consul was advised by Mr. Inge, the United States district attorney, and then 
wrote to the Secretary of State, and thus informed the Government of what he intended 
to do on his arrival at Apia and of what he had been advised by the district attorney. 
He was neither advised nor instructed by the Department, 'hence was warranted in 
concluding that he had the authority which he so ruthlessly exercised. Certainly if 
the spoliation complained of had been committed by the officers of a foreign power, 
our Government would have immediately demanded and secured full recompense to 
the injured parties. It would not have been allowed as any defense that the officer 
committing the wrongs under forms of law was acting outside of his legal authority. 
The United States would have said to England or Germany ' ' that is a matter for you 
to settle with your own official, but we must have full restitution to our injured citizen." 
Equally, if Jenkins had despoiled a German or British subject in a similar way, the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 851 

United States would have been called upon to make it right and would have speedily 
responded. Is our moral obligation to our own citizens less when they are wronged 
by our own agents? The impoverished claimants have now exhausted every means 
possible of recovery outside of Congress. The court has clearly stated their wrongs 
and ethical rights, and indicated where alone the remedy can be found. 

There has been nothing in the practice of the Government which is at all inconsist- 
ent with the views to which we have just given expression, while, on the other hand, 
there has been much in its previous action which seems to indicate a distinct recog- 
nition of their correctness. Without attempting to enumerate all the many acts in 
which Congress has paid for the damages sustained by our citizens and the citizens of 
foreign governments by reason of the negligence or wrongful acts of the officers of the 
United States, we will call attention to a few in which the action of Congress shows 
the obligation to grant relief. The act entitled "An act to provide for the settlement 
of the claim of Mary O'Sullivan (6 Stat. L., 679), approved .July 2, 1836," is a case in 
point. 

In that case the facts are briefly these: A person by the name of O'Sullivan pur- 
chased an American brig in one of the South American ports and took a bill of sale 
of her, and possession, in pursuance of it, was delivered to him; but as it appeared that 
the vessel had been registered at Baltimore as owned and commanded by one Fur- 
long, and had been long absent from the United States, O'Sullivan deposited the pur- 
chase money on board the U. S. S. Franklin, and by contract made the payment de- 
pend on a future approbation of a commercial house in New York with which O'Sul- 
livan was connected. Being, however, in possession of the vessel, O'Sullivan caused 
her to be repaired and refitted, and placing a new commander on board he directed 
her to Rio de Janeiro, and from thence to Buenos Ayres to take a cargo of hides to 
proceed to Cadiz. 

Pursuant to these directions, the brig sailed for and arrived at Buenos Ayres. On 
her arrival there she was seized by the commercial agent of the United States, and 
the master and supercargo were required to give bond that she should immediately 
and by the most direct route proceed to the United States. These officers resisted 
the demand of the agent as far as practicable, and endeavored to procure such a 
modification of the bond required as wotild enable her to proceed on the voyage to 
Cadiz. These attempts were unavailing. Mr. Forbes remained inflexible, and the 
vessel was ordered home by the most direct route, and the greater part of the cargo of 
hides which had been purchased were resold. The agent of the United States 
retained the register and forwarded it, together with his charges against the brig, to 
the Secretary of the Treasury by another vessel. No proceedings, however, were had 
upon them on the part of the Government, and the brig, after remaining for some time 
in the port of New York, was libeled for seamen's wages and on a contract of bottomry 
and sold. In the meantime O'Sullivan, the owner of the brig, had proceeded to 
Cadiz to await her arrival with cargo ordered to be shipped by him, and after having 
been detained there for some months in vain awaiting her arrival, he returned to 
the United States; and it was to make compensation for the losses incurred by him 
in consequence of the breaking up of the contemplated voyage of his brig through 
the action of the commercial agent that the act for the relief of Mary O'Sullivan, just 
mentioned, was passed. 

It is obvious from the circumstances of this case that it necessarily implies a com- 
plete recognition of the views before expressed by us as to the principal which should 
govern in deciding upon questions of this nature, and that if there be any difference 
between the two cases that difference is altogether in favor of the one before us, as the 
illegal acts complained of by the claimants were all perpetrated in a distant island, 
where the population were almost in a state of nature, whilst the others all transpired 
within the limits of a well-known government. 

The case of St. Louis and M. V. Transfer Co. v. United States, reported in 184'U. S., 
247, involved both negligence and wrongful acts of the officers of the United States. 
In this case the court held that the United States was liable for the negligence and 
wrongful acts of its officers, and gave claimants judgment. In the opinion of the 
court (by Justice Shiras) we find the following: 

"It (the Court of Claims) in effect, and indeed in terms, found that the loss of the 
three barges occurred by collision with Government vessels, and was occasioned by 
negligence of the United States officers in command of the vessels. Judgment was 
rendered against the United States for the sum of $19,800.85, which amount the 
Fifty-seventh Congress appropriated, and the same was paid. By act approved 
June 7, 1902, Congress authorized the Court of Claims, if the facts justified it, to enter 
judgment against the United States and in favor of Thierman & Frost, of Concordia, 
Ky., if they found that the seizure and sale by the revenue officers of the United 
States of the distillery property of said parties was unlawful." 



852 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

By act approved January 24, 1903, Congress appropriated $5,683 in full payment 
for the wrongful and unlawful acts of the United States officers in arresting and seiz- 
ing the property of Frank A. Darling at the city of New Orleans. 

By act approved January 31, 1903, Congress appropriated $40 to repay J. V. Worley, 
of Hardin County, Tenn., in full for money wrongfully collected by the United 
States marshal. 

By act approved February 28, 1903. Congress appropriated $5,000 to the executor 
of the estate of James P. Willett, deceased, who lost his life by reason of the wrongful 
act and negligence of the employees of the Post-Office Department in the District 
of Columbia. 

By act approved February 28, 1903, Congress appropriated $1,951 "to pay the 
damages inflicted upon George A. Rogers, a contractor with the United States Gov- 
ernment, while drilling in New York Harbor, said damages being caused by the 
unwarranted and illegal acts of the officers in charge of the United States torpedo 
boats." 

Christopher Schmidt, a German subject, was paid (30 Stat. L., 106) $3,000 for inju- 
ries received from a stray bullet fired by United States soldiers while at target prac- 
tice at Fort Snelling, Minn. 

As to the injury to both person and property we call attention to the following, viz: 

In the first session of the Fifty-fifth Congress, in compliance with a Senate resolu- 
tion. President McKinley in a message (Mis. Doc. No. 17) gives a long list of the 
instances in which Congress had paid both individuals and foreign governments for 
injury and damages to persons and property sustained by reason of the neglect and 
wrongful acts of officers and citizens of the United States. 

The findings of fact herein referred to are given consecutively: 

V. 

Pursuant to the foregoing orders and decrees all the property belonging to the said 
Aaron Van Camp individually was sold, and all of the property of V. P. Chapin & Co., 
at a great sacrifice. The value of this property is alleged by the claimant to have been 
as follows: 

AARON VAN CAMP. 

Two lots, with the buildings and other improvements thereon $16, 000 

Furniture and library in residence and outhouses (as enumerated by L. D. 

Haskins and V. P. Chapin) _. 4, 000 

Collection of shells and natural curiosities -. 10, 000 

Lot of medicines, medical books, and surgical instruments 500 

One milch cow 100 

One consular gig, with masts, sails, and oars, complete 300 

Total of Van Camp's property 30, 000 

V. P. CHAPIN & CO. 

Property taken and sold from on board the schooner Eudorus $21, 942 

Stocks of goods in their store 15, 000 

Goods, wares, and other articles in the warehouses and on the premises of 
V. P. C. & Co., at Tutuila, Pennryhn Islands, and other places, including 

a sloop and other boats 29, 192 

550 gallons sperm oil, from the cargo of the Rambler 1, 650 

Account of charges for cooperage, lighterage, storage, etc., on oil from the 

Rambler 15, 000 

Total of property of V. P. Chapin & Co 82, 784 

(Pec, pp. 31, 67, 68, 72, 86, 92.) 

56 casks of sperm and whale oil, 200 barrels of which was whale oil 40, 000 

63,000 pounds of whalebone, at 50 cents ; 3, 150 

43, 150 
Less charges of V. P. Chapin & Co. for storage, cooperage, lighterage, etc 28, 150 

VI. 

But the court finds that much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to prove 
the loss and value of the property above described consists of ex parte affidavits, 
letters, and documents, which are not legally competent, and must be excluded from 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 853 

the consideration of the court. After excluding such incompetent evidence the 
court finds the value of the property taken under the proceedings set forth in Finding 
IV, as follows: 

Individual property of Aaron Van Camp $17, 400 

Property of V. P. Chapin & Co 38, 700 

Lien of Chapin & Co. on property of the Rambler 4, 000 

60, 000 
XI. 

It appears from certain documents to be found in the record that as soon as the said 
Jenkins received his commission as consular agent, and before leaving San Francisco 
for the post of duty, he made known to the United States district attorney for the 
district of California and to the Secretary of State the fact that he considered himself 
clothed with extraordinary powers. In a letter to the district attorney, written at 
San Francisco, and dated 18th of February, 1856, he calls attention to the act of Con- 
gress of the 11th of August, 1848, for carrying into effect certain provisions in relation 
to the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls contained in the 
respective treaties between the United States and China, and the United States and 
the Ottoman Porte, and requests to be advised whether in his position as United States 
consul at Apia in the Navigators' Islands, he shall be justified in applying the provi- 
sions of the said act to the fullest extent to the territory within the limits of his consu- 
late. In a letter written at San Francisco, dated 20th of February, 1856, and addressed 
to Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, he says: 

"I beg to draw your attention to the inclosed copy of a communication addressed 
by me to the United States district attorney for the district of California, wherein I 
beg to be advised as to the bearing of the act of Congress of 11th of August, 1848, relat- 
ing to extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China and Turkey, as 
regards the territories included in the limits of my consulate. Mr. Inge, during a 
personal interview, told me that there was no question but that the act alluded to in- 
cluded my position in its application, and that a written opinion from him on the matter 
would be supererogatory. Under these circumstances I shall have no hesitation in 
acting in accordance with Mr. Inge's opinion, so expressed, until I receive direct instruc- 
tions on the point from the Department of State." 

Neither the said district attorney (Mr. Inge) nor the Secretary of State responded 
to the said letters of February 18 and 20, 1856. 

XII. 

The report of the Treasury Department bearing date January 21, 1890, shows that 
in the settlement of his accounts as consul the said Jenkins charges himself on the 
30th of September, 1856, with $530.96 cash received. from the clerk of the consular 
court, "being the balance of the estate of Aaron Van Camp." It also appears from 
said report that by the advice of the Department of State and by the action of the 
Treasury Department the sum of $621.23 was paid to Aaron Van Camp on the 17th 
of December, 1859, and on May 12, 1860, the further sum of $262.25 was paid to him. 
And, so far as disclosed, no other restitution has been made to said Van Camp or his 
estate, and none whatever has been made to said Chapin or his estate. 

XIII. 

From the facts as here found the court finds that, if the claimants are entitled to 
recover, there is due to the estate of Aaron Van Camp from the defendants the sum 
of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($38,750) and similarly due 
the estate of Virginius P. Chapin the sum of twenty-one thousand three hundred and 
fifty dollars ($21,350). 

The memorial of Van Camp and Chapin, now on file in the Court of Claims, addressed 
to Congress in the year 1857, shows that Jenkins, the United States consul, claimed that 
he had paid out a large portion of the money he had received from the Van Camp and 
Chapin property for salaries of the judges and officers of his so-called consular court, 
and other expenses connected with his proceedings, and the only other statement we 
can find as to what he did with the money is contained in the twelfth finding of fact of 
the Court of Claims, and the report of Commodore William Mervine, U. S. Navy, to 
which report he made an affidavit, dated December 24, 1857, which is attached to and 
made a part of the memorial. In said affidavit appears the following : 

"I met Jenkins at Panama in the early part of this year (1857) while on his way to 
Washington from Apia, when he told me of his acts in regard to Mr. Van Camp's prop- 



854 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

erty, and he then stated that he had $5,000 in his possession belonging to Mr. Van Camp 
which he, Van Camp, would never get." 

The twelfth finding of fact by the court shows that Jenkins was allowed by the De- 
partment, upon settling his accounts, to retain $530.96 which Jenkins said he charged 
to himself. Independent of the $530.96 he turned over to the State Department 
$883.48. 

Van Camp in his affidavit dated November 5, 1857, and printed in his memorial to 
Congress, and now on file in the Court of Claims, states among other things (p. 4) as 
follows: 

"Jonathan S. Jenkins, the late United States consul, who perpetrated these wrongs, 
as near as I can find out has squandered the proceeds and is a bankrupt; and his bonds 
were given to secure the Government and individuals. ' ' 

The Washington Loan and Trust Company, 
By Jno. Joy Edson, President, 

Administrator Estate Aaron Van Camp. 



Exhibit B. 

The Committee on Claims, which has had under consideration the bill (S. 3782) 
to carry into effect the findings of the Court of Claims in the case (Congressional, 
No. 23193) of the Washington Loan and Trust Company, legal representative of the 
estate of Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and Mary M. U. Chapin, and Rua P. Chapin, 
legal representatives of the estate of Virginius P. Chapin, deceased, now begs to 
report the same back to the Senate, recommending its passage with the following 
amendments: 

Amend the title to read: " A bill for the relief of the estates of Aaron van Camp 
and Virginius P. f.hapin," 

In line 6, page 1, strike out the word " Congressional." 

In lines 4 and 5, page 2, strike out the words "equitably found due claimants, 
respectively," and insert in lieu thereof the words "unlawfully taken from claimants, 
respectively, by the consular agent of the United States at Navigators Island, as 
found." 

The facts on which this claim is based are found in Senate Report No. 1307, Fifty- 
fifth Congress, second session, which report accompanied an amendment proposed by 
Mr. Hansbrough to a bill (S. 3546) for reference of certain claims against the Govern- 
ment of the United States to the Court of Claims. The said report is made a part of 
this report, marked "Appendix A." 

Since said last-mentioned report the matter has again been under consideration by 
the Court of Claims in pursuance of an act approved February 6, 1903. The court in 
the latter case makes complete findings of fact, but holds as a question of law that it 
does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment. 

It appears from the history of the case that the matter once came before the supreme 
court of the District of Columbia on a suit brought by the claimants against said 
Jonathan S. Jenkins, and judgment was rendered against him for the destruction and 
spoliation of the claimants' property in the aggregate of $126,637. The court in the 
late case, referring to the findings and judgment of the District supreme court, made 
the following finding : 

"VI. But the court finds that much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to 

J)rove the loss and value of the property above described consists of ex parte affidavits, 
etters, and documents, which are not legally competent, and must be excluded from 
the consideration of the court. After excluding such incompetent evidence the court 
finds the value of the property taken under the proceedings set forth in Finding IV, 
as follows : 

Individual property of Aaron Van Camp $17, 400 

Property of V. P. Chapin & Co 38, 700 

Lien of Chapin & Co. on property of the Rambler : 4, 000 

60, 100 

In the eighth finding of fact the court states that said judgment in the District 
court was in the following amounts : 

In behalf of Aaron Van Camp $63, 223 

In behalf of Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin 63, 408 



ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 855 

The court declares : 

" A writ of fieri facias was issued against the property of said Jenkins in each of the 
above cases, which, on the 18th of May, 1860, was returned wholly unsatisfied. It 
does not appear that the claimants ha^e ever received anything from either judgment. " 

The following findings of fact, made by the court in the last case, are also necessary 
to a clear understanding of the present status : 

"XI. It appears from certain documents to be found in the record that as soon as 
the said Jenkins received his commission as consular agent, and before leaving San 
Francisco for the post of duty, he made known to the United States district attorney 
for the district of California and to the Secretary of State the fact that he considered 
himself clothed with extraordinary powers. In a letter to the district attorney, 
written at San Francisco and dated 18th of February, 1856, he calls attention to the 
act of Congress of the 11th of August, 1848, for carrying into effect certain provisions 
in relation to the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls con- 
tained in the respective treaties between the United States and China and the United 
States and the Ottoman Porte, and requests to be advised whether in his position as 
United States consul at Apia, in the Navigators Islands, he shall be justified in 
applying the provisions of the said act to the fullest extent to the territory within the 
limits of his consulate. In a letter written at San Francisco, dated 20th of February, 
1856, and addressed to Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, he says: 

"'I beg to draw your attention to the inclosed copy of a communication addressed 
by me to the United States district attorney for the district of California, wherein I 
beg to be advised as to the bearing of the act of Congress of 11th of August, 1848, 
relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China and Turkey, 
as regards the territories included in the limits of my consulate. Mr. Inge, during a 
personal interview, told me there was no question but that the act alluded to included 
my position in its application, and that a written opinion from him on the matter 
would be supererogatory. Under these circumstances I shall have no hesitation in 
acting in accordance with Mr. Inge's opinion, so expressed, until I receive direct 
instructions on the point from the Department of State. ' 

" Neither the said district attorney (Mr. Inge) nor the Secretary of State responded 
to the said letters of February 18 and 20, 1856. 

"XII. The report of the Treasury Department bearing date January 21, 1890, shows 
that in the settlement of his accounts as consul the said Jenkins charges himself on 
the 30th of September, 1856, with ' $530.96 cash received from the clerk of the consular 
court, being the balance of the estate of Aaron Van Camp.' It also appears from said 
report that by the advice of the Department of State, and by the action of the Treasury 
Department, the sum of $621.23 was paid to Aaron Van Camp on the 17th of December, 
1859, and on May 12, 1860, the further sum of $262.25 was paid to him. And, so far 
as disclosed, no other restitution has been made to said Van Camp or his estate; and 
none whatever has been made to said Chapin or his estate. 

"XIII. From the facts, as here found, the court finds that, if the claimants are 
entitled to recover, there is due to the estate of Aaron Van Camp from the defendants 
the sum of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($38,750), and simi- 
larly due the estate of Virginius P. Chapin the sum of twenty-one thousand three 
hundred and fifty dollars ($21,350)." 

As stated above, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction lo enter a judgment, 
although it recognized the moral obligation of the Government to protect its citizens 
against outrages committed by its officers in the name of the United States. The 
court designates this obligation as an ethical question, and alleges "that such a ques- 
tion as this case presents is not one for judicial determination, 'but for the exercise 
of legislative discretion." 

There are numerous cases in the statutes where Congress has granted relief in similar 
cases. These are too numerous and too well known to requ're citation. Many of them 
have been called to the attention of your committee by the claimants. 

The circumstances surrounding this claim make a peculiar obligation on the part 
of the Government. The two citizens, claimants, were doing business on an island 
in mid-ocean. The consular agent assumed to set up a so-called consular court on 
the advice of the United States district attorney and after he had brought the matter 
to the attention of the Secretary of State asking to be advised in the premises. No 
advice was ever given. Thus Secretary of State Marcy, United States District Attor- 
ney Inge, of San Francisco, Cal., and the United States consular agent, Jenkins, 
appear to be all directly or indirectly responsible for the losses sustained by the 
claimant; and the whole proceedings under which these losses accrued were in the 
name of the United States and under the forms of a court of law. 

Your committee can not make the case stronger than by referring to the facts set out 
in said Report No. 1307 and in the findings made by the Court of Claims in case No. 
23193, decided January 11, 1904, and quoted in full herein, marked "Appendix B." 



856 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Appendix A. 
[Senate Report No. 1307, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session.] 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the proposed amendment to bill 
(S. 3546) to send certain claims to the Court of Claims for adjudication, have consid- 
ered said proposed amendment, beg leave to submit the following report, and recom- 
mend that said amendment be amended by inserting after the word ; ' claim," at the 
end of line 1, on page 2, the following: 

"To hear and determine the question of the liability of the United States for the 
losses found by said court in its said sixth finding of facts. ' ' 

And that said bill so amended do pass. 

The Court of Claims having found the facts, with the exception of the liability of 
the United States for said losses, your committee have examined into the history of 
said claim since the acts complained of occurred, and find that the claimants peti- 
tioned Congress for redress, and at the second session Thirty-fifth Congress, the Hon. 
Miles Taylor, from the Committee (H. R.) on Claims, made a favorable report (No. 
212), recommending that the Government of the United States pay the amount of 
said losses. No further action was taken during said Congress. 

At the first session Thirty-sixth Congress, Mr. Ely, from the Committee on Claims, 
on May 25, 1860, made House Report No. 569, recommending that the United States 
Government pay said losses, and on March 21, 1860, at the first session Thirty-sixth 
Congress, Mr. Iverson made Senate Report No. 148, recommending that the United 
States pay said losses. 

Your committee have not discovered any further action on the part of Congress 
until about June, 1886, when the Committee on Claims (H. R.) ordered the petition 
of said claimants to be transferred to the Court of Claims, under the act of March 3, 
1883; said petitioners claimed that they had suffered a loss of over $126,000 by reason 
of the acts of the officers of the United States. Upon a hearing before the Court of 
Claims the aggregated loss was fixed by said court at 360.100, but they did not pass 
upon the liability of the Government because of the want of jurisdiction. 

The court certified the facts to the House of Representatives on January 18, 1891, 
but no action has been taken thereon by Congress. 

Your committee have examined Senate Report No. 148, made at first session Thirty- 
sixth Congress, and find that it gives a full and complete history of the acts of the 
United States officers in connection with said claim, and some of the authorities and 
precedents showing that the United States has assumed and paid damages done by 
similar acts of its officers; therefore we adopt said report as our own and make it a 
part of this report. 

[Senate Report No. 148, Thirty-sixth Congress, first session.] 

In the Senate of the United States. March 21, 1860. — Ordered to be printed. Mr. 
Iverson made the following report, to accompany bill S. 297. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Van Camp & 
Chapin, concurring in the report made by the Hon. Miles ^Taylor, of the Committee 
of Claims of the House of Representatives of the last Congress, hereby adopt the 
same as the report of this committee in the case aforesaid. The said report is as 
follows : 

[In the House of Representatives, March 3, 1859.] 

The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of A. Van Camp 
and V. P. Chapin, asking compensation for property of which they allege they have 
been deprived at Apia, in the Navigators Islands, by the wrongful acts of the com- 
mercial agent of the United States, exercising authority there, have had the same 
under consideration and now respectfully report: 

The allegations contained in the memorial, and the facts stated in several deposi- 
tions accompanying it, were of such a nature that your committee deemed it proper 
to apply to the State Department for any information it might be in possession of con- 
nected with the various transactions which, in the opinion of the memorialists, gave 
rise to the claim preferred against the United States. In answer to the application 
made to it, that Department laid before the committee an immense mass of original 
papers, embracing everything in existence which was calculated to throw any light 
upon the subject before the committee, but intermingled with a vast deal of matter 
that could have no bearing upon it. These papers have all been examined with as 
much care as the time at their disposal would allow; and the committee will now give 
such a narration of the facts disclosed by those papers as seems necessary for the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 857 

proper decision of the question presented by the memorial, without entering into any 
very extended or particular detail of them. 

Mr. Chapin had been for some time commercial agent of the United States at Apia, 
in the Navigators Islands, when he was superseded by Mr. Van Camp, in 1854. Mr. 
Chapin was engaged in carrying on a commercial business whilst he acted as com- 
mercial agent, and Mr. Van Camp, when he arrived at his post, entered upon the 
same pursuit and provided himself , by the purchase, etc., with the land and build- 
ings necessary for the prosecution of his trade and for the accommodation of the mem- 
bers of his family, by whom he was accompanied. After the arrival of Mr. Van Camp 
it seems that he and Mr. Chapin carried on business each on his own account until 
some time in the spring of 1855, when they formed a commercial partnership under 
the name and style of V. P. Chapin & Co. The business carried on by the partnership 
appears to have been considerable and to have required for the prosecution a very 
considerable stock of merchandise and several establishments. 

Whilst Mr. Van Camp was thus engaged in carrying on a mercantile business he 
also gave his attention to the proper business of his office of commercial agent, and 
it is shown by the papers before the committee that his conduct in his official capac- 
ity, in various instances, gave rise to complaints against him on the part of those who 
were affected by it. Reports growing out of the complaints against him, and inju- 
rious to his character, were widely circulated in various ports on the Pacific, and it 
is altogether probable that some of them were communicated to the State Depart- 
ment, though there is no direct evidence to that effect before us. During this same 
period, also, difficulties grew up between Mr. Van Camp, in his capacity of com- 
mercial agent for the United States, and Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, which led 
to much angry discussion, and at last terminated in an appeal on the part of Mr. 
Pritchard to Captain Fremantle, of Her Britannic Majesty's navy, who was in those 
waters with his ship, the Juno. And, in addition to these difficulties with Mr. 
Pritchard, the British consul, Mr. Van Camp had another with divers residents of 
Apia in relation to a road, or street, or right of way, in which different holders of 
property near the bay were interested, in which Commander Bailey, of the United 
States Navy, intervened in some way. 

Mr. Van Camp left his post on the 12th of May, 1856, on board of the United States 
ship Independence, with his family, for Valparaiso. The cause of his departure for 
Valparaiso, he states, was the necessity of going there to look after the disposition 
of a large amount of property belonging to American citizens, which was there in 
his possession. This property consisted of the cargo of the American whale ship 
Rambler, which arrived at Apia in distress in December, 1855. That ship having 
been condemned as unseaworthy, the cargo had been placed in the warehouses of the 
memorialists by the master, and he, not being able to dispose of it after some three 
months' stay, had given it in charge to Mr. Van Camp, with authority to him to make 
the best disposition of it in his power for all concerned. Some time having elapsed 
without Mr. Van Camp having an opportunity to make any disposition of this property 
at anything approaching a fair price, he determined to ship it to Valparaiso, and for 
that purpose he chartered the schooner Eudorus, Captain Seaman, for $4,000, to pro- 
ceed to Valparaiso. The cargo of the Rambler, with some property of the memorialists 
to complete the lading, was shipped on the Eudorus before the departure of Mr. Van 
Camp; and when he left Apia, on the 12th of May, 1856, in the Independence, it was 
expected the Eudorus would have followed in a few days. This, however, was not 
to be. 

Many months before this Mr. Van Camp had been superseded in his office of com- 
mercial agent of the United States for the Navigators Islands by the appointment of 
one Jonathan S. Jenkins to the place. What was the cause of- the removal of Mr. 
Van Camp does not appear. It is more than likely that it was produced by the reports 
in circulation to his injury, though nothing of the sort appears from the papers, and 
there is nothing to show that any inquiry into their truth was ever instituted under 
the direction of the State Department. Upon whose recommendation or upon what 
information Jenkins was appointed is unknown to your committee. But a more 
unfit person to fill any place — and least of all a place of such responsibility beyond 
the confines of civilization — it is entirely apparent from his own correspondence with 
the State Department, and from other evidence, could not well have been selected. 

Mr. Jenkins left San Francisco, California, in the early part of March, 1856, in the 
schooner Jeannette, bound for the Navigators Islands, and was accompanied on his 
voyage by Thomas F. Martin and James M. Conway, two persons who claimed to 
have been injured by Mr. Van Camp in proceedings taken by him in his official 
capacity with respect to the American barks St. Mary and Elvira. It appears from 
the affidavit of Samuel J. Agnew that Jenkins, before leaving San Francisco, declared 
he was "going to the islands to arrest Van Camp and seize and sell his property to 
pay Martin and others who claimed to have been robbed by Van Camp," and on 



858 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the voyage frequently stated that "he had the power, if he caught Van Camp, to 
hang him, and that his power was equal to a king's." The same purposes and the 
same exaggerated notions as to his powers are also shown by the correspondence of 
Jenkins with the State Department. In his letter to the Secretary of State of August 
11, 1856, he says, in the course of a narrative of his proceedings after his appoint- 
ment, that "California was rife with accounts of Mr. Van Camp's malversations, and 
it was reported that he had a gang of rascals at his back, ' ' and then remarks that he 
"felt anxious, but none the less resolute, determined to take life in the maintenance 
of the honor and dignity of his office." 

Information was given to Mr. Jenkins of his appointment by a letter from the State 
Department, dated on the 31st of December, 1855. His official bond was given at 
San Francisco on the 9th of February, 1856. On the 20th of February, 1856, he wrote 
to the State Department, as appears from one of his letters, mentioning his design 
of regarding the provisions of the act of Congress entitled "An act to carry into effect 
certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Otto- 
man Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United 
States in those countries," approved August 11, 1848, as having so extended an appli- 
cation as to clothe him, in the Navigators Islands, with the same authority. And 
on or about the 6th of March, 1856, he sailed from San Francisco for his consulate, 
before it was possible for him to have any reply to that letter. While on his voyage 
thither, it seems, both from his letter to the Department, inclosing copies of what 
he terms his "decrees," and from the deposition of Samuel J. Agnew, before referred 
to, that Mr. Jenkins made every preparation necessary to give what would seem to 
be the forms of law, in the eyes of ignorant or interested men, to the extraordinary 
course of violence meditated by him. At the time he prepared and signed papers 
in which he assumed to create a consulate court of the same character and clothed 
with the same powers with those provided for in the act just referred to, approved 
on the 11th of August, 1848, and proceeded to appoint a clerk for the court to be 
organized and a marshal to execute its process. Robert S. Swanston and Samuel J. 
Agnew, who were passengers with Mr. Jenkins on the schooner Jeannette, were ap- 
pointed to the places thus created by him, and were sworn in to their respective 
offices before the schooner entered the harbor of Apia. 

It further appears from the letters of Mr. Jenkins to the Department of State, and 
from the papers accompanying these letters, which are now before the committee, 
that the schooner Jeannette, with Mr. Jenkins and his newly appointed officials on 
board, arrived off the harbor of Apia on the evening of the 16th of May, 1856, and 
that Mr. Jenkins having, upon inquiry, learned from the pilot. who came on board 
of the schooner that Mr. Van Camp had left Apia, but that a vessel which was to sail 
the next day for Valparaiso was then in the harbor laden with property of his, sent 
Martin and Conway ashore to request Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, to detain 
the vessel in question until his (Jenkins's) arrival in port. The British consul, in 
conformity with this request of Mr. Jenkins, detained the vessel. 

On the next day Mr. Jenkins entered the harbor of Apia, and his marshal, acting 
under the authority of an order signed by Jenkins on the 16th of May, 1856, and 
directing him to take possession and control of "all the property of or belonging to 
Aaron Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for Apia, wherever it may 
be found, and of whatever kind and description it may be," etc., proceeded to take 
possession of the property laden on board of the Eudorus, and to seize the private 
dwelling of Van Camp, together with the buildings, merchandise, etc., belonging to 
V. P. Chap in & Co., in which Van Camp had an interest. 

But this was not all. On the same clay Mr. Jenkins made another order, in the 
following words: 

United States Consular Court, Apia, in the Island of Upola, Navigators 

Islands. 

The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the United States 
for the consulate of Apia and his deputies, or any of them, greeting: 

Whereas an oath has been made to me charging that Aaron Van Camp did, on or 
about the 16th of May, 1855, unlawfully and piratically and feloniously seize and 
take possession of the American bark St. Mary, within the jurisdiction of the consular 
court of the consulate of Apia. 

Now, therefore, you are hereby commanded, in the name of the President of the 
United States, to apprehend the said Aaron Van Camp and keep him in safe custody 
until he be dealt with according to law. 

Jonathan S. Jenkins, 
United States Consul and Vice Commissioner for the 

Consulate of Apia, Navigators Islands. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 859 

What scenes of violence and blood might have followed an attempt to execute 
such an order, out of the sphere of any civilized government, by misguided or design- 
ing men, no one can tell. Luckily for the reputation of the United States, the absence 
of Mr. Van Camp, on his voyage to Valparaiso, left Mr. Jenkins no opportunity "to 
take life," in vindicating "the honor and dignity of his office," through the exer- 
cise of his usurped powers, as he says in his letter of the 11th of August, 1856, he 
was prepared to do. The property of Mr. Van Camp, however, and that of other 
persons which had been confided to his care, was within Jenkins's reach, and he 
proceeded to work his will upon it through the agency of a series of proceedings which 
were not only carried on without any shadow of legal authority, but were in them- 
selves as iniquitous as they were illegal. 

Soon after landing in Apia, Jenkins appointed three associate judges to sit with 
him in the consular court, established by the decree passed by him before his 
arrival. These "associates" were Horace B. Dunn and Josiah B. Leeds, the super- 
cargo and captain of the Jeannette, in which he had come to the islands as a pas- 
senger, and Henry Seaman, the captain of the Eudorus, whose cargo had just been 
seized by Jenkins's order. When they were appointed does not appear; but their 
written acceptances of the "commissions" issued to them are among the papers, 
and bear date on the 22d and 23d of May, 1856; and two proceedings — one in the 
name of Thomas F. Martin, and the other in the name of J. M. Conway, and which 
were entitled cases "in admiralty" — were then instituted, before the court so organ- 
ized, against Mr. Van Camp, and were carried on with such speed that they were 
brought to a termination by final decrees bearing date on the 29th and 31st of May, 
1856, upon which executions were immediately issued. 

All the property on board of the Eudorus, though a large portion of it belonged to 
third parties, together with the other property previously taken possession of under 
the orders issued by Jenkins on his arrival, was seized as the property of Van Camp 
under these executions, and sold at auction on the 2d day of June, 1856. the third 
day after the seizure. Your committee have not found among the papers any detailed 
report of this sale, showing what was sold, or what were the prices paid for the differ- 
ent species of property, or who were the purchasers; but there is a statement among 
the papers before them, dated June 16, 1856. and which was sent to the Department 
of State by Mr. Jenkins, with his letter of the 30th of September, 1856, from which 
it appears that the proceeds of the sale made by the marshal, on the 2d of June, 1856, 
amounted to $16,993.16; and that, after deducting from that amount the sum of 
$1,877.31 for the marshal's fees and other "cash expenses" of the proceedings had, 
the remainder, forming the sum of $15,115.85, was paid into the consular court. Ac- 
companying this statement is another showing how this sum was disposed of. From 
that statement it seems that the further sum of $431.25 was appropriated to pay the 
fees of the clerk and court; that $4,000, the full amount to be paid to Captain Seaman, 
master of the Eudorus, under his charter-party, for the freight from Apia to Valpa- 
raiso, of the property shipped on it by Mr. Van Camp have been paid to Captain 
Seaman, although his vessel had not left the harbor; that $9,606.60 had been paid 
to Martin in part satisfaction of his judgment; and that a balance of $1,077.90 still 
remained at that time in the consular court. 

What was the real value of the property thus sold and disposed of your commit- 
tee have no means of knowing; nor is it, perhaps, of any importance that it should 
be known, to enable the House to act in a proper manner on the question presented 
to it by the memorialists. There can be no doubt, however, when all the circum- 
stances are considered, that the property put up at sale, under the authority of Mr. 
Jenkins, was wantonly sacrificed, to the grievous injury of all those having an interest 
in it. And the question then arises, have the memorialists any claim, legal or equi- 
table, upon the United States in the case presented by them; and, if so, then what 
is the extent of that claim? Does it reach to the value of the whole property of which 
they were deprived by the action of Jenkins? Or is it to be diminished because a 

Eortion of it was really applied to the payment of a debt or debts legitimately due 
y them? Before entering on the question as to the existence of any liability at 
all to the memorialists on the part of the United States, your committee think it 
best to dispose of the question as to there being any indebtedness on the part of Van 
Camp, one of the memorialists, to either Conway or Martin, in whose names the pro- 
ceedings carried on by Jenkins were instituted. 

J. M. Conway preferred a claim against the effects of Aaron Van Camp for the sum 
of $6,585, for the value of the New Granadian bark Elvira, which had been some time 
before sold, as he alleged, by the authority of Mr. Van Camp, acting in his capacity 
of commercial agent. 

The facts in relation to the sale of the Elvira, as shown by the original papers before 
us, are briefly these: The bark Elvira, Captain E. Alley, master, arrived at Apia 



860 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

from San Francisco, bound to Sydney, on the 26th April, 1855, and among the per- 
sons on board was one P. S. Colby, who claimed to be the owner of the bark, and was 
so admitted to be by the master. On the same day the master of the bark, E. Alley, 
and P. S. Colby went before Mr. Van Camp as the commercial agent of the United 
States at Apia, and made a protest in relation to this bark, styling it the "American 
bark Elvira, of San Francisco." In this protest, which was signed by them both, 
various charges of misconduct were made against Jesse L. Atwood, first officer of the 
bark, and prayed that he, Atwood, might be discharged from the vessel and dealt 
with according to law. The following day P. S. Colby, calling himself the owner 
of the American bark Elvira, went before Mr. Van Camp in his official capacity, and, 
together with J. M. Coe, Lewis Bartlett, then mate of the bark, and Robert Stanley, 
declared upon oath that the passengers and crew of the vessel were in a state of insub- 
ordination and mutiny, and in consequence of this fact, Mr. Colby, then, in the same 
written instrument, called on Mr. Van Camp, as the United States consul, "to take 
into his possession the said bark and cargo, and to make the best arrangement he 
could for the benefit of all parties concerned." 

On the next day (the 28th of April, 1855) the master of the bark. Captain Alley, 
stated under oath that he had had great difficulties with her passengers; that on his 
voyage from San Francisco they had used very abusive language toward him and threat- 
ened to take his vessel; and that since his arrival at Apia, "a mob of some twenty" 
of them had "come to the house on shore where he was sick, and said that he should 
go no farther on the voyage, and that in the evening of the same day they had re- 
paired on board the ship, drove the mate away, and taken possession of her." In 
this statement Captain Alley declared that he and Mr. Colby, the owner, who was a 
passenger with him, were American citizens, and calls on Mr. Van Camp, as the United 
States commercial agent, to take possession of his vessel, the bark Elvira. 

After this, thirty-one passengers on the bark addressed a letter, dated on the 30th 
of April, 1855, to Mr. Van Camp, as the United States commercial agent, and to G. 
Pritchard, as the British consul, jointly, in which they style the bark the New Gra- 
nadian bark Elvira, and make a statement of the grievances under which they say 
they had been and were still laboring. 

They represented that they had been detained in San Francisco "about a month 
while on board of the bark," owing to an insufficiency of funds on the part of the owner 
or owners; that they had sailed from San Francisco with rotten rigging and rotten 
sails ; that they were then without fresh provisions of any kind ; that there was neither 
captain, mate, steward, or sailors on board; and that they were left in the vessel, out in 
the harbor, without a supply of good fresh water, and without any means of communi- 
cating with the shore. They further asserted that it was admitted by Captain Alley 
himself that the bark could not proceed to sea without a cash advance of three or- four 
thousand dollars to procure the sails and rigging and provisions necessary for the voyage; 
and as they had no confidence in Captain Alley, who, they said, got frequently intoxi- 
cated, and was unfit to be intrusted with the command of the vessel, they therefore 
begged leave to place their interests under the joint protection of the two function- 
aries, inasmuch as their different nationalities authorized both of them to interpose 
in their behalf. This letter of the passengers was followed, on the 2d of May, 1855, 
by a statement addressed to the commercial agent and signed by Lewis Bartlett, the 
first officer, and five seamen belonging to the bark, in which they "complain that 
the said bark is not safe, or in a suitable condition to go to sea, because she is insuf- 
ficiently supplied with sails, rigging, and provisions." 

Acting 'on these various representations and statements Mr. Van Camp ordered a 
survey of the bark. The survey was made on the day after the representations and 
statements were presented, and the two "master mariners," Captain Richard M. 
Jackson and Captain Henry Seaman, who made it reported it as their opinion that 
the vessel had been well provided, but that at that time she stood in need of a num- 
ber of new sails, and that the running rigging, fore and aft, should be replaced; and 
they also found that the expense of supplying her with extra provisions for her voyage 
would amount to sixteen hundred dollars, or "thereabouts." After this survey 
was made no progress whatever was made in getting the vessel ready for sea; and 
on the 28th of June following, Captain Alley made a declaration in writing to the 
effect that he could "not raise money by bottomry or in any other way," and that 
as his crew had had a survey held on the vessel and she had been condemned, and 
he was not able to make the necessary repairs, etc., and his crew insisted on being 
paid off, and that therefore he "E. Alley, master of the said bark," consented that 
Aaron Van Camp should "sell the said bark at public auction for the purpose of 
paying the crew and other lawful claims against her. ' ' 

Acting under the authority of law, and of the formal request of the master of the 
vessel, Mr. Van Camp proceeded to sell the Elvira at auction, to the highest bidder, 
on the 2d of July, 1855, when P. S. Colby, her owner, being the highest bidder, she 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 861 

was struck off to him for the sum of $1,200. This sale was ratified by Captain Alley, 
who executed a formal act of sale for her to Colby on the 3d of July, and on the 5th 
of the same month relinquished the command of her and turned her over into the 
possession of Colby as the purchaser. 

What became of the cargo of the Elvira does not appear from the papers, but it 
clearly appears that it was disposed of by the authority of Captain Alley, as there 
is an order from him to Van Camp, dated on the 17th of July, 1855, in which he directs 
him to deliver twenty boxes of tobacco, which he had left with him, to P. S. Colby, 
and "to settle with him for all of his claims and demands against the sixty thousand 
feet of lumber" which he had landed at his place from the bark Elvira. 

From this recital of the facts disclosed by the records of the State Department 
relating to this transaction it would seem that the bark Elvira was disposed of with 
the authority of law and of the master and of the reputed owner, and that no liability 
could attach to Mr. Van Camp for his acts, even though it were true that J. M. Conway 
was the real owner of the Elvira at the time of her departure on her voyage from San 
Francisco. 

But there is reason to believe, from what appears in the papers before us, that 
Conway had no real interest in the vessel. The only evidence of title presented 
before the court created by Jenkins, on the part of Conway, was a sale purporting to 
have been executed in San Francisco on the 19th of February, 1855, to James M. Con- 
way by one Jesse L. Atwood. No evidence of title in Atwood was offered or shown 
to exist. Now it appears from the papers in the State Department that there was a 
Jesse L. Atwood on board of the Elvira in the capacity of first officer or mate on her 
arrival at Apia, and that he was dismissed from the vessel there by the authority of 
the commercial agent for misconduct on charges preferred by Captain Alley and P. S. 
Colby, the reputed owner. In the absence of proof to the contrary, is it not fair to 
presume that the Jesse L. Atwood who was on the bark Elvira in the port of San Fran- 
cisco as mate at the time the pretended sale to Conway was made and who was dis- 
missed from the bark in Apia for misconduct was the same Jesse L. Atwood who made 
the sale set up by Conway, and one and the same person? If that were so it would be 
entirely in keeping with all the other features presented by this case. 

The suit of Conway against Van Camp in Jenkins's consular court, as appears from 
a copy of the record now before us from the State Department, was instituted on the 
29th of May, 1856, and proceeded with such remarkable celerity and convenient expe- 
dition that it was brought to a conclusion by a final decree rendered on the 31st of 
the same month, the second day after it was begun. But this was not by any means 
the most extraordinary circumstance in the case. Among the evidence laid before 
the court, though it seems that much of the most important must have been purposely 
kept out of sight, there was enough to show the real nature of the transaction, so far 
as Mr. Van Camp was concerned, and in consequence the "associate judges" decided 
unanimously that if Conway was the true owner of the bark the case presented was 
one of barratry of the master, "and that no just cause of complaint" could lie "against 
the said Aaron Van Camp," &c. This decision, made on the 30th of May, 1855, was 
not in accordance with the views or wishes of Jenkins, and on the next day, in vio- 
lation even of the provisions of the very act under which he pretended to derive the 
extraordinary powers he had been exercising, he overruled that decision and pro- 
ceeded to make a decree condemning Van Camp to the payment of $6,589 as damages 
and the cost of the proceedings. 

We will now turn to the other claim — that of Thomas F. Martin. This claim against 
Mr. Van Camp, as made before the consular court of Jenkins, was for the sum of 
$20,001.42, for the value of the American bark St. Mary and her cargo, which he 
alleged Mr. Van Camp had unlawfully and feloniously converted to his own use, and 
for the loss of the profits which he might have realized by the use of the vessel from 
the day of seizure until the claim was preferred, and to compensate him "for the griefs, 
ill-usages, and hardships which the conduct of Van Camp had entailed on him." The 
sum total is made of various items set forth by Martin in detail, among which are the 
following: 

First cost of the St. Mary $3, 250. 00 

Expenses in fitting her for sea 2, 322. 62 

Profits that he could have realized by the use of his vessel from the day of 

her seizure until the making of the claim, at the rate of $500 a month 6, 000. 00 

For the griefs, ill-usage, and hardships entailed on him, &c 4, 000. 00 

The facts in the case of the St. Mary, as shown by the papers before us, are these: 

The bark St. Mary, Thomas F. Martin, master, from San Francisco, bound to Mel- 
bourne, arrived at Apia early in May, 1855, in distress. 

On the 6th of May, 1855, Captain Martin wrote to Mr. Van Camp, as commercial 
agent, charging Francis Stanley, his first mate, and William Thurgood, his second 



862 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

mate, with gross disobedience of his lawful orders, both on the voyage from San Fran- 
cisco and since his arrival at Apia, and complaining of the conduct of his passengers, 
and formally protested "against the said officers and passengers continuing on the voy- 
age on the said ship with him. ' ' 

On the 7th of the same month (the day following), Captain Martin and his first 
mate, Stanley, made their protest before Mr. Van Camp, in his official capacity, in 
which they spoke of the severe weather which had put the bark in its distressed con- 
dition, and had led to the loss of a part of her cargo; and on the same day the second 
mate, with the carpenter of the barque and four of the seamen, made their written 
complaint to Van Camp, as commercial agent, in which they represented that the 
St. Mary was not in a suitable condition to go to sea; 1st. Because she was in a leaky 
condition: 2d. That she was insufficiently equipped with sails and running rigging; 
and, 3d. That her provisions were inadequate, both in quantity and quality, for the 
prosecution of her voyage. Upon these various representations, a survey of the St. 
Mary was ordered. 

This order was followed by a survey made on the 2d of June, 1855, by John McClem- 
ens and James Parker, shipmasters, duly appointed to make the same, who declared, 
upon oath, that, after a careful examination of the bark, they found "her hull very 
rotten and unfit for sea, unless she should have new topsides and deck." And they 
further stated that the cargo of flour and barley was "very much damaged." 

There is another instrument also among the papers, purporting to give the result of 
an inspection as to the condition of the "cargo " of the St. Mary, made on the same day, 
on the joint request of Captain Martin and Mr. Van Camp, by Joseph A. Wilson and 
Francis Stanley, Captain Martin's mate. The examination made by these persons did 
not extend to the condition of the vessel. It was limited to ascertaining the condition 
of her cargo alone, and beyond all doubt preceded the other. It was not, in any sense, 
an official act, as it was not verified by oath, but seems to have been a mere private 
paper, clothed with no official formality. Whatever may be the character of the 
paper, whether it be official or a mere private one, its contents fully sustain the pro- 
priety of the commercial agent's interference in the case, for it is distinctly stated 
in it that the vessel was found "in a neglected and dirty condition;" that "the pas- 
sengers were in a state of mutiny and confusion, and apparently in charge of the 
vessel;" that "the body of the cargo was badly damaged on the bottom, in the wings, 
and on top, apparently caused by leaky bottom, side, and deck;" and that, "for the 
purpose of preserving a portion of the cargo, it should be all removed from the vessel; " 
and it is further declared that "in the present condition of the vessel it would be very 
improper to reship it in her." 

It is proper to mention that another paper of the same description with the one just 
spoken of seems to have been executed by Henry Seaman and Joseph A. Wilson, bear- 
ing date on the 8th of May, 1 855, as is stated in the record of the proceedings in the con- 
sular court of Jenkins, at the instance of Martin; that such a paper was produced, 
though the original of it is not to be found among the papers before us. This paper, 
however, like that executed by Wilson and Stanley, corroborates the correctness of 
the decision of the shipmasters who held the survey ordered upon the bark, as the per- 
sons making it, after stating the result of their inspection of the vessel and cargo in 
detail, certify at the close of their report "that in her present state the vessel was," 
in their opinion, ' ' unsafe to go to sea. ' ' 

In consequence of these various proceedings and of the condemnation of the vessel 
as unseaworthy by the shipmasters, who held a legal survey upon her, Mr. Van Camp 
ordered the vessel and cargo to be sold for the benefit of those whom it might concern; 
and it seems clear from all the evidence that this order, so far as it related to the sale 
of the cargo, was made with the full concurrence of Captain Martin. Whether Captain 
Martin did or did not consent to the sale of the bark also is involved in more doubt. 
That sale was made on the 26th of June, 1855. Among the papers received in evi- 
dence by Mr. Jenkins's court in the case of Martin against Van Camp is one dated on 
the 25th of June, the day previous, in which he protests against the sale of the bark, 
and declares that although the vessel had been condemned he, as owner, still claimed 
the right of holding his own property and disposing of it at his own pleasure. There 
are other facts, however, shown by the papers which seem to be inconsistent with this 
position of Captain Martin. 

But it seems to your committee unnecessary to decide this question. Whether 
Captain Martin was or was not opposed to the sale of his vessel was immaterial. His 
ship had been condemned as unseaworthy. He was unable to repair and equip it in 
such a manner as to fit it for going to sea. The cause of the unseaworthiness of the ves- 
sel was the rottenness of the hull, a defect existing previous to the commencement of 
the voyage, so that his voyage was broken up in such a manner as to make the vessel 
liable for the wages of the crew, and there was, under all the circumstances of the case, 
legal authority in Mr. Van Camp, as commercial agent of the United States, under the 



allowance op certain claims. 863 

act approved July 20, 1840 (5 Statutes at Large, 396"), to sell the vessel for the payment 
of the crew. 

But this is not all. There is the fullest evidence among the papers placed before 
your committee by the State Department to show that Captain Martin neither had, 
or could have had. any claim against Mr. Van Camp growing out of this transaction. 
This necessarily results from the facts, first, that Captain Martin made a sale of the 
bark St. Mary on the 2d of July, 1855, to Joseph A. 'Wilson, who had succeeded to 
the rights of the person bidding her in at auction, for the sum of sixteen hundred 
dollars, the amount of the bid made at the auction, and in the act of sail made by 
him acknowledged the receipt of the price; and, second, that he gave a power of 
attorney to the same Joseph A. Wilson on the day following, in which he empowered 
him to demand, sue for, and re< eive, all sums of money due him. &c, and to make a 
final settlement of all matters appertaining to the bark St. Mary whilst lying in the 
harbor of Apia, under which a final set* 1 ?ment was made by his attorney in fact 
with Van Camp, and a full acquittance granted to him on the 11th of October, 1855. 
It is, however, due to Mr. Van Camp to say that the papers before the committee 
show that the total of the sales made by him of the bark St. Mary and her cargo 
amounted to the sum of $9,081.85; and that it appears from the settlement made 
with Joseph A. Wilson, the attorney of Martin, on the 11th of .October, 1855, Martin 
himself had received the sum of $4,357.30 from Van Camp prior to the 12th of July, 
1S55; that the sum of $2,000 only was paid over to the attorney in fact on the settle- 
ment, and that the remainder of the total amount of the sales of the bark and her 
cargo had been appropriated to the payment of the wages of the officers and crew 
and of the expenses incurred, and of certain notes given by Captain Martin to per- 
sons .on board for advances of money. 

In the absence of all explanation, it would excite surprise that any court, no mat- 
ter how illegally created or constituted, should be able to make »uch a decision as 
that given by the consular court of Jenkins with reference to a case like that of the 
St. Mary, when the facts involved in it were of such a character as to almost neces 
sarily have great publicity, and all of them had transpired in the very place where 
the court was holden. But in the present instance there is no room for surprise when 
all the circumstances connected with the transaction are considered. 

The pretended court was created for the express purpose of depriving Mr. Van 
Camp of his property. It sat beyond the limits of any well-ordered government, so 
that it was nearly certain that those who contributed to make it an agent for per- 
petrating a barefaced spoliation would go unpunished. One of the members of the 
court, Seaman, was so situated as to find it to his personal advantage to lend himself 
to the scheme of Jenkins, as its success enabled him to realize the four thousand 
dollars under his charter-party to Van Camp without leaving Apia. The two were 
so connected with Jenkins as to subject them in a great degree to his influence. And 
the task imposed on these instruments was rendered a comparatively easy one by 
keeping out of view the most material parts of the evidence in existence. 

But powerful as were these means at the disposal of Jenkins, it is probable that 
even they would not have been sufficient to give success to his designs, had it not 
been that there was a decided hostility to Mr. Van Camp on the part of Mr. Pritch- 
ard, the British consul, who had a controlling influence in the neighborhood, and 
that Mr. Van Camp seems to have been quite unpopular with most of the white per- 
sons residing at Apia. It is proper to observe here that, so far as your committee is 
able to judge of the cause of Mr. Van Camp's unpopularity with the white persons 
there, from the papers before them, it was not attributable to anything connected with 
his official conduct, but grew out of differences between him and some of his neigh- 
bors as to the lines of their respective properties and a right of way over land claimed 
by him. It is also proper to state, in justice to Mr. Van Camp, that the difficulties 
between him and Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, rose to such a height that Mr. 
Pritchard brought them, officially, to the notice of Captain Fremantle of Her Britannic 
Majesty's ship Juno, who was then cruising in those seas, and that Captain Fremantle, 
after taking the charges of Mr. Pritchard into consideration, decided that, with respect 
to the principal one, Mr. Van Camp was right, and that the others were of too frivo- 
lous a character to require a decision on them from him. 

In whatever light the proceedings of Jenkins may be viewed, they merit unmeas- 
ured reprobation. The claims which he attempted to enforce against the property 
of Mr. Van Camp had no foundation in law or equity. But if it had been otherwise 
his conduct with respect to the whole matter would have been iniquitous in the 
highest degree. There was no warrant of law for the establishment of a consular 
court at Apia. Nor is there even the shadow of an excuse for the pretense which he 
set up beforehand to palliate his meditated usurpation of power. The act approved 
August 11, 1848, to which he referred in the communication notifying the Secretary 
of State of his intention to create such a tribunal, left no room for such a construe- 



864 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

tion as he there pretended to give to it. That act was entitled "An act to carry into 
effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and 
the Ottoman Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the 
United States in those countries," and there is not a provision in the act in relation 
to the exercise of the powers conferred which does not, in the most positive manner, 
negative the idea that any such power could be exercised elsewhere than in China 
or Turkey by the agents of the United States. 

By the law of nations the municipal laws and institutions of a State can operate 
beyond its territorial limits and within the territory of another State only by the 
authority of special compacts between the two States. It is from that source alone 
that consuls and other commercial agents derive the power to exercise over their own 
countrymen a jurisdiction in the territories where they reside. This jurisdiction, as 
it is exercised merely for the convenience of trade, is restricted among civilized 
nations within very narrow limits, and it is only with respect to China and Turkey 
that the United States have entered into any treaties providing for the creation of 
courts and the exercise of ordinary judicial powers by its own agents Avithin the ter- 
ritory of another State. In the absence of any treaty and of any legislation by Con- 
gress authorizing it, the creation of a court by any functionary of the Government 
would be a mere usurpation of power; all the decrees of any court so created would 
be absolute nullities, which would give rise to no rights; and if. through the exercise 
of any jurisdiction thus pretended to be conferred, any person should be deprived of 
his property or be aggrieved in his person, all those in any way concerned in the 
exercise of the usurped power would be personally responsible for the injuries result- 
ing from that usurpation. 

In the present instance Mr. Jenkins, the commercial agent, who assumed the right 
to create a court, the members of that court who acted under the commissions issued 
by him, and the ministerial officers who gave effect to the decrees of that court were 
all equally responsible in law to Mr. Van Camp, Mr. Chapin, and all other persons 
interested in it for the full value of the property wrongfully seized and disposed of 
under color of the proceedings already detailed. But while this is true as a legal prop- 
osition, it is also true that it is absolutely impossible for those who were thus illegally 
deprived of their property to obtain any redress for the injury they have sustained 
from the actual perpetrators of the wrong done them. These men are probably with- 
out the means of making compensation, and if they were not, as they are all now 
stationed among the islands of the Pacific Ocean, they are certainly beyond the 
reach of judicial pursuit in our courts. Jenkins, the principal actor in the commis- 
sion of the outrage perpetrated, returned to the United States and appeared in this 
city in the latter part of May, 1857. He, it is said, is notoriously without pecuniary 
means, and, in consequence of this, Mr. Van Camp, one of the memorialists who was 
then in the city, preferred a criminal charge against him before one of the magis- 
trates of the District for "feloniously and piratically robbing, stealing, taking, and 
carrying away the property of him, the said Van Camp, and others for whom he was 
agent, to the value of seventy thousand dollars," etc., at Apia, in the Navigators 
Islands. On this charge Jenkins was arrested and committed to prison to await a 
requisition for his removal to the city of New York, where Jenkins had landed on 
his return to the United States and where the offense charged upon him was cogni- 
zable. After his commitment to prison Jenkins applied to the criminal court of the 
United States for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. This writ 
was granted; and on the examination of the case Jenkins was dismissed from cus- 
tody without giving time to Mr. Van Camp to procure the attendance of witnesses 
to substantiate the charge, chiefly, so far as your committee can gather from the 
papers before them, on the ground that Mr. Appleton, the Assistant Secretary of 
State, stated when called on that he knew nothing about the facts and that the 
district attorney of the United States, Mr. Key, informed the court, when applied to 
in relation to the matter, that "the Government declined to take any part in it and 
desired that he, Jenkins, should be discharged." 

From the situation of the various persons concerned in the perpetration of the 
wrong it seems certain that the memorialists are entirely without remedy, unless 
they can obtain indemnity from the United States for the losses they have sustained 
through illegal action of a Government agent; and the question then presents itself, 
Is the Government of the United States bound to indemnify them under the circum- 
stances of this case? ( 

The general rule unquestionably is that a nation is not responsible for the illegal 
acts of its agents. But to this, like all other rules, there may be exceptions. No 
matter how just or important any particular rule may be in itself, it can not properly 
be applied to cases not embraced within the reasons on which it is founded. The 



ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 865 

reason of the general rule referred to is sufficiently obvious. In all well-ordered 
governments, where the laws are supreme and justice holds the scales and bears the 
sword, if any public functionary violates the law by usurping powers not conferred 
on him, or by the abuse of those with which he is actually intrusted, the courts are 
always open, and it is both the right and duty of every citizen who is aggrieved to call 
on them to interfere at once. If this duty is performed the illegal acts attempted to 
be done are prevented or restrained, or the damages caused by them may be repaired 
by enforcing the responsibility incurred by all those who were in any way connected 
with the transaction giving rise to them. But if, on the other hand, this duty is 
not performed; if, when one is within reach of courts competent to prevent or re- 
strain the exercise of usurped authority, he fails to invoke their aid if the means 
are at hand to enable them to compel the wrongdoers to make compensation for the 
injuries they have done or the damages they have occasioned, then there can be no 
legitimate claim on the Government, either in law or equity, on the part of the suf- 
ferer, because the injury done him may be fairly considered as the consequence of his 
own fault, or the failure to obtain redress from those directly bound to him may be 
properly imputable to his own negligence. 

But it must be otherwise, when the circumstances under which the wrongful acts 
are done are such that it is impossible to prevent the injury, or to obtain redress for it 
through the court. In such cases the reason of the rule ' ' that a nation is not responsible 
for the illegal acts of its agents" fails altogether, and the rule, in the opinion of your 
committee, can have no application. It is on that principle that compensation is made 
for property taken or destroyed in wars by our own forces, under certain circumstances; 
as, for instance, when the owner is compelled to yield the possession of it to overpower- 
ing, though illegal, force, and it was impossible for him to obtain redress for the wrong 
from the officer ordering, or those who committed it, because inter arma silent leges. 

There is also another class of cases in which governments are required, by every prin- 
ciple of justice, to make compensation to those who have suffered loss through the 
negligence or misconduct of its officers. We allude, of course, to those cases where 
individuals suffer injury because the ordinary duties of government have not been 
performed by those appointed to discharge them; as, for instance, when property is 
destroyed in time of peace by a mob composed of unknown persons, or when, through 
the failures to keep streets and thoroughfares in proper condition, unavoidable acci- 
dents occasioning injuries, either to persons or property, are met with. It is not neces- 
sary to cite adjudicated cases of the kinds referred to, where corporations of cities have 
been condemned to make compensation. All are familiar with their existence, and it 
can hardly be necessary to say that, so far as to the principle involved in such cases, it 
is as applicable to claims resulting from them against the governments of States as 
against those merely municipal in their character. 

The municipal governments of cities, like the governments of States, are established 
for the accomplishment of objects essential to the well-being of the people without 
their jurisdiction; and, as all the powers necessary for the attainment of the ends aimed 
at are vested in them, they are bound to give to their citizens the various benefits and 
advantages which they were created to secure. 

If those living under a municipal government so constituted are injured or sub- 
jected to losses because the government refuses to exercise the powers conferred on it, 
or because the agents employed under their authority to cany them into effect either 
neglect or violate their duty, the government is held to be responsible to those who are 
aggrieved, on the ground that there has been a breach of the obligation imposed on it 
in their favor by the mere fact of its creation for the benefit and advantage of all. And 
then we ask, Is not this equally true with respect to the governments of States? Is not 
the same obligation to secure their citizens against violence and wrong, and to extend 
to them the advantages proposed to be derived from their establishment, necessarily 
imposed on them also by the mere fact of their creation in the public interest ? And do 
not the same legal and equitable consequences follow from their failure to act at all in 
discharge of this obligation, or from the neglect or misconduct of the officers to whom 
they have intrusted the performance of the functions necessary to carry it out? For 
our own part, we are constrained to say that we can discover no real difference, upon 
principle, between claims made in cases of the nature referred to, no matter what may 
be the character of the government under which they arise, and that the only practical 
difference which exists between them grows out of the fact that the government of 
a State being sovereign-can not be sued, whilst that of a city is amenable to judicial 
pursuit. 

Although the determination of the question involved in the present inquiry does not 
in any way depend upon the rules of international law, yet it is tnle that cases frequently 
arise, in the intercourse of nations with each other, connected with the individual 
rights of their citizens, which are calculated to throw some light on the point under 
investigation. If a citizen of one country is injured or subjected to loss whilst in 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 55 



866 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

another country by the unauthorized or illegal acts of its officials, it has always been 
held that the government of the country where the wrong was done is bound to make 
reparation for it, and that it is the duty of the country to which the person aggrieved 
belongs to demand it for him. This is the settled practice among civilized nations; 
and the history of our own negotiations with foreign powers presents various instances 
in which such claims have been allowed and paid to our own citizens by foreign gov- 
ernments, upon the interposition of our Government in their behalf. And why is this? 
Is it not upon the ground that a government is, in law or equity, bound to make repara- 
tion in such cases, and that the obligation is so complete and incontrovertible, upon the 
principles of the civil or municipal law, as contradistinguished from the law of nations, 
that it is not only the right of a nation to claim the fulfillment of the obligation in 
behalf of its citizens, but that it also has the right by the law of nations to enforce its 
fulfillment, in the event of a refusal, even by resort to war? If this is so ; if, by the laws 
of nations it is the duty of our Government to compel a foreign government to make 
reparation to our citizens for the injuries done them by the improper or illegal acts of 
its agents; on what ground, or with what show of justice, can it be pretended that our 
own Government is not bound to make the same reparation when similar injuries are 
suffered from the improper or illegal acts of our own agents? 

From all these various considerations, it seems clear to your committee that the 
transactions giving rise to the claim before us are in no way embraced in the reason 
of the general rule, that "nations are not.responsible for the illegal acts of their agents," 
and that they are, in truth, within the reason of those in which it has been uniformly 
held by our courts that an obligation to repair wrongs suffered or losses incurred by 
individuals is justly imposed on the public. Indeed, it is not easy to conceive of a 
case which is more entirely within the recognized principles of law. The transactions 
on which the claim is founded took place beyond the limits of any government com- 
petent to protect or vindicate the rights of individuals, and, it may be said, without the 
pale of civilized society. 

The only authority which could have been legitimately exercised there over Amer- 
ican citizens was vested in the very man who was engaged in the perpetration of the 
wrongs complained of, and that man's usurpation of power was sustained by an over- 
powering physical force, which his official position alone enabled him to command. 
There was no means within reach of the sufferers by which the usurpation of power 
which caused the injury done could have been prevented, or by which the responsibil- 
ity incurred by those concerned in depriving them of their property could have been 
enforced. But this is not all. Your committee are constrained to say, in addition to 
this, that the executive department of the Government seems to have failed altogether 
to make any efforts for the assistance or relief of our citizens who have been so grievously 
injured, after the facts in relation to the injury done them had been brought to its 
knowledge, and that there is good reason to believe that it was chiefly owing to its 
unwillingness to act that the principal wrongdoer, when there was an attempt made to 
bring him to justice, upon his venturing within the jurisdiction of our courts, was 
enabled to escape without a trial, or even a decent judicial investigation. 

So far as your committee are informed, there has been nothing in the practice of the 
Government which is at all inconsistent with the views to which we have just given 
expression, whilst, on the other hand, there has been much in its previous action which 
seems to indicate a distinct recognition of their correctness. Without attempting an 
enumeration of the instances of that character, it will be sufficient for our purpose to 
refer to a single instance in the action of Congress in which such a recognition is neces- 
sarily implied. This is furnished by theact (6 Stat, at Large, p. 679) entitled "An act to 
provide for the settlement of the claim of Mary O'Sullivan," approved July 2, 1836. 

In that case the facts were briefly these: A person by the name of O'Sullivan pur- 
chased an American brig in one of the South American ports, and took a bill of sale of 
her, and possession, in pursuance of it, was delivered to him; but as it appeared that 
the vessel had been registered at Baltimore as owned and commanded by one Furlong, 
and had been long absent from the United States, O'Sullivan deposited the purchase 
money on board the United States ship Franklin, and by contract made the payment 
depend on the future approbation of a commercial house in New York with which 
O'Sullivan was connected. Being, however, in possession of the vessel, O'Sullivan 
caused her to be repaired and refitted, and placing a new commander on board, he 
directed her to Bio de Janeiro, and from thence to Buenos Ayres, to take a cargo of hides 
to proceed to Cadiz. 

Pursuant to these directions, the brig sailed for and arrived at Buenos Ayres. On 
her arrival there she was seized by the commercial agent of the United States, and 
the master and supercargo were required to give bond that she should immediately, 
and by the most direct route, proceed to the United States. These officers resisted the 
demand of the agent as far as practicable, and endeavored to procure such a modifica- 
tion of the bond required as would enable her to proceed on the voyage to Cadiz. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 867 

These attempts were unavailing. Mr. Forbes remained inflexible; and the vessel 
was ordered home by the most direct route, and the greater part of the cargo of hides, 
which had been purchased, was resold. The agent of the United States retained the 
register and forwarded it, together with his charges against the brig, to the Secretary of 
the Treasury by another vessel. No proceedings, however, were had upon them on the 
part of the Government, and the brig, after remaining for some time in the port of New 
York, was libelled for seamen's wages and on a contract of bottomry, and sold. In 
the meantime O' Sullivan, the owner of the brig, had proceeded to Cadiz to await 
her arrival with cargo ordered to be shipped by him, and after having been 
detained there for sonie months, in vain awaiting her arrival, he returned to the 
United States; and it was to make compensation for the losses incurred by him in 
consequence of the breaking up of the contemplated voyage of his brig, through the 
action of the commercial agent, that the act for the relief of Mary O' Sullivan, just 
mentioned, was passed. 

It is obvious from the circumstances of this case that it necessarily implies a com- 
plete recognition of the views before expressed by us as to the principle which should 
govern in deciding upon questions of this nature; and that if there be any difference 
between the two cases, that difference is altogether in favor of the one before us, as 
the illegal acts complained of by the memorialists were all perpetuated in a distant 
island where the population are" almost in a state of nature, whilst the others all trans- 
pired within the limits of a well-ordered government. 

In conclusion, then, your committee, in view of the facts now disclosed in this 
case, have no hesitation in saying that in their opinion the memorialists are entitled 
to compensation for the losses which they have actually sustained by the illegal acts 
of Jonathan S. Jenkins, commercial agent of the United States, under color of his 
office, and of those acting under his pretended authority; and we therefore present 
the accompanying bill and recommend its passage. 



Appendix B. 

[Court of Claims. No. 23193. (Decided January 11, 1904.) The Washington Loan and Trust Com- 
pany, legal representative of Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and Mary M. U. Chapin and Rua A. Chapin, 
legal representatives of Virginius P. Chapin, deceased, v. The United States.] 

This case having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the evidence, 
make the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin were citizens of the United States, 
residing at Washington, D. C, and Clarksburg, in the State of West Virginia, respec- 
tively. 

II. Virginius P. Chapin was appointed United States commercial agent for the 
Navigators Islands by President Fillmore and acted as such until he was superseded 
by Aaron Van Camp, in 1854, under an appointment by President Pierce. In May, 
1855, they formed a copartnership, under the firm name and style of V. P. Chapin 
& Co.; built up a large mercantile establishment at Apia, Samoa, consisting of ware- 
houses and storehouses, a pearl-shelling depot on the Pennrhyn Islands, and an 
establishment at the island of Tutuila for purchasing cocoanut oil. 

Van Camp left Apia on the 12th of May, 1856, on the United States ship Inde- 
pendence for Valparaiso, having appointed Chapin to act as vice-consul during his 
absence. His departure for Valparaiso was caused by the necessity of his being at 
that place to look after the disposition of a large amount of property belonging to 
American citizens, consisting of the cargo of the American whale ship Rambler, 
which arrived at Apia in distress in December, 1855. Said ship having been con- 
demned as unseaworthy, her cargo was placed in the warehouses of V. P. Chapin & 
Co. by Elihu E. Winchell, her master, who, having been unable to dispose of it after a 
stay of three months at Apia, gave it in charge to Van Camp, with authority to him 
to make the best disposition of it he could for all concerned; and no opportunity 
having offered to dispose of the property at a fair price, and after consultation with 
Commodore Mervine, of the United States flagship Independence, it was decided to 
ship the cargo by the American schooner Eudorus, Henry Seaman, master, to Val- 
paraiso, the schooner having been chartered for that purpose at the sum of $4,000. 

III. After the departure of Van Camp, as aforesaid, but before the departure of the 
Eudorus, one Jonathan S. Jenkins arrived at Apia, having been appointed several 
months before to supersede Van Camp as commercial agent for the Navigators Islands, 



868 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

accompanied by Thomas F. Martin and James M. Conway, who claimed to have 
been injured by Van Camp in certain proceedings taken by him, in his official capacity, 
with respect to the American barks St. Mary and Elvira, while on the voyage from 
San Francisco to the Navigators Islands. Jenkins prepared and signed papers, in 
which he assumed to create a consular court, and appointed Robert S. Swanston 
clerk and Samuel J. Agnew marshal. He arrived off the harbor of Apia on the 16th 
day of May, 1856, and having learned that Van Camp had left for Valparaiso, and 
that the Eudorus was in the harbor laden with property belonging to Van Camp 
and about to sail for Valparaiso, sent Martin and Conway on shore to see the British 
consul and request him to detain the Eudorus, informing him of the course he intended 
to pursue against the property of Van Camp. 

The next day Jenkins entered the harbor and his marshal, acting under the authority 
of an order signed by him, Jenkins, on the 16th of May, 1856, and directing him to 
take possession and control of "all the property of or belonging to Aaron Van Camp, 
late United States commercial agent for Apia, wherever it may be found, and of 
whatever kind or description it may be, and keep the same in safe custody, subject 
to the order of the court," proceeded to take possession of the property laden on 
board the Eudorus, and to seize the private dwelling of Van Camp, together with 
the buildings, merchandise, etc., belonging to V. P. Chapin & Co., in which Van 
Camp had an interest. 

IV. Soon after landing at Apia, Jenkins also appointed three so-called associate 
judges to sit with him in his consular court in two proceedings, styled "cases in 
admiralty," one in the name of Thomas F. Martin and the other in the name of J. M. 
Conway, against Van Camp, the proceedings of which court appear in the following 
so-called orders and decrees: 

[United States consular court for the consulate of Apia; in admiralty. T. F. Martin v. A. Van Camp, 
in rem. before Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. consul, presiding judge; Horace D. Dunn, Henry Seaman, 
Josiah B. Leeds, associate judges.] 

The court do find that the plaintiff, T. F. Martin, has fully proved the illegal seizure 
and sale of the bark St. Mary and property thereon, and the confiscation of the pro- 
ceeds by the above A. Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for Apia. 

The court do therefore award unto the said T. F. Martin the sum of eight thousand 
dollars in full of the value of the said vessel and property thereon belonging to the 
said T. F. Martin. 

And do further award the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) as 
damages in consideration of the losses, detriment, and distresses directly entailed upon 
the said plaintiff, T. F. Martin, by the aforesaid illegal acts of the said A. Van Camp, 
late commercial agent for the United States for Apia. 

Given at the United States consular court of Apia, under the consular seal and the 
signatures of the aforesaid presiding and associate judges, the 28th day of May, 1856. 

[seal.] Jonathan H. Jenkins, 

JJ. S. Consul and Vice-Commissioner for 

the Consulate of Apia, Presiding Judge. 
Henry Seaman, 
, Josiah B. Leeds, 

Horace D. Dunn, 

Associate Judges. 



[Court of the United States consulate, Apia, Navigators Islands. Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. consul, 
presiding judge. In the cause in admiralty, J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp, in rem.] 

The undersigned, associate judges of this court, after a patient hearing, and upon a 
careful examination of the testimony offered in the case of J. M. Conway v. Aaron 
Van Camp, relating to the alleged seizure and sale of the New Grenadian bark Elvira, 
which said alleged seizure and sale transpired within the jurisdiction of the consular 
court of this place, have come to and can give no other opinion or give other decision 
than the following: 

(1) It will be seen by reference to the testimony (all of which was offered on behalf 
and on the part of said plaintiff, and may, therefore, be supposed to be the most 
favorable to his, the said plaintiff's, interests) that the evidence of many of the wit- 
nesses conflict upon many essential points of time, of occurrence, and of mode of 
procedure and action of many of the parties interested, or said to have been interested, 
in the transaction' connected with the complaint. £< 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 869 

(2) That no testimony has established the fact that the captain of the said bark 
was forced to deliver up the possession of the said vessel or that he did so. 

(3) That according to the testimony of the mate, Mr. Attwood, and others, the cap- 
tain of said bark willfully neglected to take the necessary steps to insure the com- 
pletion of his voyage, all of which we believe to have been purposely and willfully 
neglected by him. 

(4) That the testimony shows that the said captain was acknowledged and obeyed 
by his crew of said Elvira for at least two (2) months after his arrival in this port, 
and that bills for supplies furnished to said vessel and for labor done on said vessel 
for some time after her arrival were refused payment by Aaron Van Camp unless they 
were properly certified to by Captain E. Alley, the master of the Elvira, upon whose 
endorsement they were paid by Aaron Van Camp. 

(5) That the vessel was under a foreign flag, and that therefore Aaron Van Camp, 
as U. S. commercial agent, had no control of the bark Elvira in his official capacity, 
and could not therefore compel her sale or give proper title. 

(6) That from the testimony the master of the Elvira appears to have willfully 
misrepresented that a Mr. Colby was her owner, and by his general conduct in the 
matter appears to have been the principal in the said alleged fraud. 

(7) That it appears from the testimony that Captain Alley had the papers of the 
Elvira in his possession for a considerable time after his arrival, amply sufficient to 
have refitted and sent her to sea while she was yet in his possession. 

(8) That the said Aaron Van Camp did pay bills for expenses on account of the 
bark Elvira, such as seamen's wages and other claims, and that the amount realized 
from the alleged sale was so small as to leave a fair inference that the amount alleged 
to have been paid by the purchaser was little, if any, more than said charges, no 
moneys, however, having been testified to as having been received at the sale. 

(9) That from the testimony taken as a whole the alleged fraud connected with 
said vessel in Apia appears to have been committed by and with the consent of Cap- 
tain Alley, who, as master of the Elvira, represented and acted as agent for her owners, 
and that by his act he has committed barratry, and is therefore personally answerable. 

(10) That the said bark Elvira is liable to seizure by her lawful owners wherever 
found, and such proceedings would be upheld in any civilized country; therefore, in 
accordance with the before-stated reasons, we, the undersigned associate judges of 
the United States consular court, can come to no, nor can form any, other decision 
than the following, viz: 

That the offense was barratry of master, and that no just cause of complaint can 
lay against the said Aaron Van Camp, and that therefore no damages can be given 
to J. M. Conway, plaintiff, to be paid from the property of the aforesaid Aaron Van 
Camp. 

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands under the seal of the consulate 
of Apia, on this 31st day of May, 1856. 

Horace D. Dunn, 
Josiah B. Leeds, 
Henry Seaman, . 
Associate Judges of the U. S. Consular Court of Apia. 



[United States consular court, Apia, Navigators Islands. Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States consul, 
presiding judge. In the cause in admiralty, J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp, in rem.] 

I, Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States consul for the consulate of Apia, believing 
the testimony in the above cause fully proves that Aaron Van Camp, knowingly 
and willfully, acting as the United States commercial agent for this port of Apia, did 
wrongfully, on or about the 2d day of July, 1855, sell and hold from the possession 
of said J. M. Conway the bark Elvira, I therefore grant the said J. M. Conway six 
thousand five hundred and eighty-five dollars ($6,585) damages and the costs in the 
case; but as the associate judges in this case have differed with me in opinion, I 
shall hold this judgment as subject to the confirmation of the United States Gov- 
ernment. 

The property of the said Aaron Van Camp shall be sold and the proceeds held in 
my hands awaiting the action of the Government of the United States in the matter. 

Given under my hand and the seal of my consulate this 31st day of May, 1856. 

[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

TJ. S. Consul, Vice- Commissioner for the 

Consulate of Apia, Presiding Judge. 



870 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

Court of the United States consulate, Apia, Navigators Islands, to Henry Seaman, master 

of brigantine Eudorus: 

By virtue of a judgment rendered in this court in favor of Francis Martin, against 
the property and effects of Aaron Van Camp, to the amount of ten thousand five 
hundred dollars and costs, and also of a judgment rendered by the presiding judge 
of the above court in favor of James M. Conway, for the sum of six thousand five 
hundred and eighty-five dollars and costs, against the property and effects of Aaron 
Van Camp, you are hereby commanded to deliver into the possession of the United 
States marshal for this consulate the cargo on board of the brigantine Eudorus, under 
your command, the said cargo being consigned to and the property of the aforesaid 
Aaron Van Camp. 

Given under my hand and seal of the consulate of Apia this 31st day of May, 1856. 

[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

TJ. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. 



[U. S. consular court, Apia, Samoa, 30th May, 1856. T. F. Martin v. A. Van Camp. Cause in admiralty.] 

To the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, greeting: 

You are hereby ordered to advertise and sell the whole of the property of A. Van 
Camp, within this consulate, or such portion of it at public sale as shall be necessary 
to defray the judgment in the above cause in favor of complainant and the costs 
incurred in the said cause, and make due return to the court thereof. ' 

Given under my hand and seal this 30th day of May, 1856, in this port of Apia. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. 



[U. S. consular court, Apia, Navigators Islands.] 

To the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, greeting: 

You are hereby ordered to take into your possession all the books used by the firm 
of V. P. Chapin & Co., viz, books of entry of the different operations connected with 
the business, and hold them safely in your possession subject to the orders of this 
court. 

Given at Apia this 29th May, 1856. 

By order of the court. 

[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge. 



monition express and judgment. 

The undersigned, Jonathan S. Jenkins, after a careful examination of the evi- 
dence of V. P. Chapin, given in the case of T. F. Martin v. Aaron Van Camp, do 
adjudge that the said V. P. Chapin has no right, title, or interest in the cargo of the 
American schooner Eudorus, which cargo is now lying attached on board of said 
vessel in this port of Apia, and that the use of the name of V. P. Chapin & Co., as 
shipper of said cargo, does not, in the face of the evidence of the above-named V. P. 
Chapin, prove ownership therein to the said V. P. Chapin, but that, by the said evi- 
dence and the several shipping papers connected with the cargo, the property 
belonged solely and entirely to Aaron Van Camp. 

And now, in accordance with the above decision, I do hereby command the United 
States marshal for the consulate of Apia to consider the said cargo shipped by V. P. 
Chapin & Co., in accordance with this my decision, and to proceed against it as the 
property of the said Aaron Van Camp, under the order of sale issued to him against 
the said Aaron Van Camp's property from this court, and dated 30th May, 1856. 

Given under my hand and seal of office this 13th day of May, one thousand eight 
hundred and fifty-six. 

[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Vice- Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 871 

The undersigned, judge and associate judges of the consular court of Apia, Samoa, 
in the Navigators Islands, on examining the papers relative to the whale and sperm 
oil and whalebone now on board the brig Eudorus, can find no other conclusion than 
that it, the said oil and bone, is the property of Aaron Van Camp, the bills of lading 
being from V. P. Chapin to the said Aaron Van Camp, and the letters of instructions 
to the supercargo and captain of the said brig being of the same purport as. to consign- 
ments or ownership. 

Given under my hand and the consular seal this 20th day of May, 1856. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge. 
Henry Seaman, 
Josiah B. Leeds, 
Horace D. Dunn, 

Associate Judges. 



[United States consulate, Apia, Upolu. Referee case in reference, Thos. F. Martin and J. M. Conway 
v. Aaron Van Camp. Cause in admiralty.] 

We, the undersigned, having been called upon by the United States consular 
court in full session to inquire into and decide upon the merits of a certain claim of 
Captain Henry Seaman, of the brigantine Eudorus, for the amount of charter money 
agreed to be paid to him by Aaron Van Camp upon his delivery in Valparaiso a cer- 
tain cargo shipped to the order of the said Aaron Van Camp, the said cargo having 
been seized under a judgment and monition issued out of the U. S. consular court 
for this consulate against the said Aaron Van Camp in favor of the parties aforesaid, 
and undelivered here in this port of Apia, do decide: 

(1) That Captain Seaman is entitled to his full charter money as though he had 
fulfilled his charter party, he having already broken ground, and the noncarriage of 
the said cargo in Valparaiso having been the result of the illegal and wrongful acts 
of the said Aaron Van Camp, and not of any insufficiency on the part of the Eudorus 
or her tackle, or of any unwillingness on the part of the said Henry Seaman to fulfill 
his contract, and that the said Seaman was forcibly, by orders of the said court, dis- 
possessed of the said cargo. Charter money, as per charter, $4,000. 

(2) That the 20 log days named in the charter party do commence from the day 
the vessel was detained, viz, 17th day of May, inclusive. 

(3) That the expense of discharging the cargo do fall upon the said cargo, Captain 
Seaman having refused to unliver the freight, and having ordered his crew to refrain 
from aiding in the same. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the consulate at Apia this 2d day of June, 
1856. 
We acknowledge to have received our fee of $10, as allowed by law. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

TJ. S. Consul, Presiding Judge. 
Jeremiah Norton, 

Master of Louisiana. 
Josiah B. Leeds, 

Master of Jeanette. 

United States Consular Court, 

Apia, Navigators Islands. 
The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the United States for the 
consulate of Apia, his deputies, or any other, greeting: 

You are hereby commanded to take possession of, and under your control, the 
property of or belonging to A. Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for 
Apia, wherever it may be found, and of whatever kind or description it may be, and 
keep the same in safe custody, subject to the order of the court. 
Given under my hand and seal the 16th day of May, 1856. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Vice- Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia. 



872 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

United States Consular Court, 

Apia, Navigators Islands. 
The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the United States for the 
consulate of Apia, his deputies, or any other, greeting: 

You are hereby commanded to take possession of the cargo of the brigantine Eudorus, 
now lying in this harbor, and hold the same in safe custody, subject to the order of 
this court, and also to deter the said schooner from leaving port. 

Given under my hand and seal the 16th day of May, 1856, and the year of our Inde- 

lence the eightieth. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Vice- Commissioner for the 

Consulate of Apia, Navigators Islands. 



Court of the United States Consulate, 

Apia, Navigators Islands. 
To the United States marshal of this consulate, greeting: 

You are ordered to proceed on board the schooner Eudorus, now lying detained in 
this port by virtue of an order from the United States consul here, and, taking such 
force as you may require, break open the hatches and sell and deliver the aforesaid 
cargo according to the judgment and monition to you issued from the United States 
consular court of the consulate, dated the 29th day of May, 1856. 
Given under my hand and the seal of the consulate this 2d day of June, 1856. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. 



U. S. Consular Court, 

Apia, Navigators Islands. 

[J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp. In admiralty.] 

To the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, greeting: 
You are hereby ordered to advertise and sell the whole of the property of Aaron 

Van Camp, within this consulate, that is not now liable to judgment, or such portion 

thereof as shall be necessary to defray the judgment in the above cause and the costs 

of the case, and make due returns to this court thereof. 
Given under my hand and the seal of the consulate this 31st day of May, 1856. 
[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. 



I, Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States consul and vice-commissioner for Apia, 
Upolu, and the adjoining islands, certify that the foregoing attached documents are 
true and correct copies of the originals now on file in the office of the consulate of 
Apia. 

Given under my hand and seal of office this 18th day of June, 1856. 

[seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U S. Consul, Apia. 

I certify that the foregoing are true and correct copies of the originals now on file 
in the office of the consulate of Apia. 
June 18, 1856. 

James Anderson, Clk. 



On Tuesday next, the 19th inst., will be sold, in pursuance of a judgment issued 
out of the U. S. consular court in favor of J. M. Conway, the remainder of the interest 
of A. Van Camp in the firm of V. P. Chapin & Co., consisting of sundry merchandise, 
of debts due the said firm, and of their investment at the Pennrhyn Islands, as will 
be more fully particularized at the time of sale. 

Jonathan S. Jenkins, 

U. S, Consul. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 873 

Sale to commence at 10 o'clock a. m., at the store of S. Pritchard, esq., Metafell, 
15th August, 1856. 

V. Pursuant to the foregoing orders and decrees, all the property belonging to the 
said Aaron Van Camp individually was sold, and all of the propertyof V. P. Chapin, 
& Co., at a great sacrifice. The value of this property is alleged by the claimant to 
have been as follows: 

Aaron Van Camp. 

Two lots, with the buildings and other improvements thereon $16, 000. 00 

Furniture and librarv in residence and outhouses (as enumerated by 

L. D. Haskins and V. P. Chapin)..... 4,000.00 

Collection of shells and natural curiosities 10, 000. 00 

Lot of medicines, medical books, and surgical instruments 500. 00 

1 milch cow 100.00 

1 consular gig, with masts, sails, and oars, complete 300. 00 



Total of Van Camp's property 30,900.00 

V. P. Chapin & Co. 

Property taken and sold from on board schooner Eudorus $21, 942. 00 

Stocks of goods in their store .• 15, 000. 00 

Goods, wares, and other articles in the warehouses and on the premises 
of V. P. C. & Co. at Tutuila, Pennryhn Islands, and other places, in- 
cluding a sloop and other boats „ 29, 192. 00 

550 gals, sperm oil, from the cargo of the Rambler r . . 1, 650. 00 

Account of charges for cooperage, lighterage, storage, &c, on oil from 
the Rambler 15,000,00 

Total of property of V. P. Chapin & Co 82, 784. 00 

Property of Aaron Van Camp, agent for the owners and shippers of cargo on board the 

Rambler. 

56 casks of sperm and whale oil, 200 bbls. of which was whale oil $40, 000. 00 

63,000 lbs. of whalebone, at 50 cts 3,150.00 

43, 150. 00 
Less charges of V. P. Chapin & Co. for storage, cooperage, lighterage, &c. . 15, 000. 00 

28, 150. 00 

VI. But the court finds that much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants 
to prove the loss and value of the property above described consists of ex parte affida- 
vits, letters, and documents, which are not legally competent, and must be excluded 
from the consideration of the court. After excluding such incompetent evidence the 
court finds the value of the property taken under the proceedings set forth in Find- 
ing IV as follows: 

Individual property of Aaron Van Camp $17, 400. 00 

Property of V. P. Chapin & Co 38,700.00 

Lien of Chapin & Co. on property of the Rambler 4, 000. 00 

* 60, 100. 00 

VII. The property claimed by Van Camp as agent for the owners and shippers of 
the Rambler was of considerable value in excess of the lien of Chapin & Co. for light- 
erage, storage, cooperage, etc., which the court finds to have been $4,000, as set forth 
in Finding VI. But the said owners and shippers have not appeared as claimants or 
otherwise, nor does it appear that they ever made any demand on Van Camp for the 
property or sought to hold him liable therefor. 

VIII. In 1858 the claimants brought two suits in trespass de bonis asportatis against 
Jonathan S. Jenkins for the property before described, in the late circuit court of the 
District of Columbia. The defendant appeared in person and by counsel and defended. 
On the 27th of October, 1859, the cases came to trial, and a verdict was found for the 
plaintiff in each case, as follows: 

Aaron Van Camp v. Jonathan S. Jenkins $63, 223. 00 

Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin v. The same 63, 408. 00 



874 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

A writ of fieri facias was issued against the property of Jenkins in each of the above 
cases, which on the 18th of May, 1860, was returned wholly unsatisfied. It does not 
appear that the claimants have ever received anything upon either judgment. Jen- 
kins, the defendant, is now deceased. 

IX. The court, adopting the foregoing as part of the findings herein, further finds 
that the case is now before it in pursuance of an act entitled ' ' An act for the relief of 
the heirs of Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin,'' which was approved February 
6, 1903, and is as follows: 

"That the claim of Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin against the United 
States (Congressional case numbered one thousand and forty-nine), the findings of 
fact in which were transmitted to the House of Representatives by House Miscel- 
laneous Document Numbered Eighty-one, Fifty-first Congress, second session, is 
hereby referred to the Court of Claims, to hear and determine the question of the 
liability of the United States for the losses found by said court in its said sixth find- 
ing of fact, with jurisdiction to hear and determine the same upon the principles of 
law and equity and in compliance with the rules and regulations of said court. 

' ' And in the event the said court shall be of the opinion that the United States are 
justly liable, under all the circumstances of the said case, for the losses and damages 
sustained by the said decedents by reason of the acts of their officers in the prem- 
ises, the said court shall render judgment in favor of the claimants for the amount 
found to be due by its sixth finding of fact in the said Congressional case numbered 
one thousand and forty-nine, as set forth in the report of the said court to the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives on January eighth, eighteen hundred and ninety-one: 
Provided, That no statute of limitations shall be pleaded in bar of the recovery of said 
claim: And provided further, That in determining the question of the liability of the 
United States the said court shall consider the' testimony submitted to it in the 
investigation of said Congressional case numbered one thousand and forty-nine, 
together with all affidavits and documents; also the reports of officers of the State and 
Treasury Departments of the United States in the settlements of accounts of the 
officers of the United States in connection with the said claim. 

"And furthermore, that if the judgment shall be rendered against the United States 
for the amount found and fixed by said court in said sixth finding of fact, to wit, the 
sum of sixty thousand one hundred dollars, the same shall be paid, out of any money 
in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the legal represen- 
tatives of the said Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and the said Virginius P. Chapin, 
deceased, as their respective interests may appear, and the new action to be brought 
under the provisions of this act shall be in the name of said legal representatives." 

X. That the Washington Loan and Trust Company of the District of Columbia 
was duly appointed, on the 16th day of January, 1900, as the administrator of the 
estate of Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and that Mary M. U. Chap n and Rua P. Chapin 
were, on the 23d day of February, 1893, duly appointed administrators of the estate 
of Virginius P. Chapin, deceased. 

XI. It appears from certain documents to be found in the record that as soon as 
the said Jenkins received his commission as consular agent, and before leaving San 
Francisco for the post of duty, he made known to the United States district attorney 
for the district of California and to the Secretary of State the fact that he considered 
himself clothed with extraordinary power. 

In a letter to the district attorney, written at San Francisco, and dated 18th of 
February, 1856, he calls attention to the act of Congress of the 11th of August, 1848, 
for carrying into effect certain provisions in relation to the right of extra-territorial 
jurisdiction of United States consuls contained in the respective treaties between the 
United States and China, and the United States and the Ottoman Porte, and requests 
to be advised whether in his position as United States consul at Apia, in the Navi- 
gators Islands, he shall be justified in applying the provisions of the said act to the^ 
fullest extent to the territory within the limits of his consulate. In a letter written 
at San Francisco, dated 20th of February, 1856, and addressed to Hon. William L. 
Marcy, Secretary of State, he says: 

' ' I beg to draw your attention to the inclosed copy of a communication addressed 
by me to the United States district attorney for the district of California, wherein I 
beg to be advised as to the bearing of the act of Congress of 11th of August, 1848, 
relating to extra-territorial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China and Turkey, 
as regards the territories included in the limits of my consulate. Mr. Inge, during 
a personal interview, told me that there was no question but that the act alluded 
to included my position in its application, and that a written opinion from him on 
the matter would be supererogatory. Under these circumstances I shall have no 
hesitation in acting in accordance with Mr. Inge's opinion so expressed until I receive 
direct instructions on the point from the Department of State." 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 875 

Neither the said district attorney (Mr. Inge') nor the Secretary of State responded to 
the said letters of February 18 and 20, 1856. 

XII. The report of the Treasury Department bearing date January 21, 1890, shows 
that in the settlement of his accounts as consul, the said Jenkins charges himself on 
the 30th of September, 1856, with " $530.96 cash received from the clerk of the consular 
court, being the balance of the estate of Aaron Van Camp." It also appears from said 
report that by the advice of the Department of State, and by the action of the Treasury 
Department, the sum of $621.23 was paid to Aaron Van Camp on the 17th of December, 
1859, and on May 12, 1860, the further sum of $262.25 was paid to him. And, so far as 
disclosed, no other restitution has been made to said Van Camp or his estate; and none 
whatever has been made to said Chapin or his estate. 

XIII. From the facts, as here found, the court finds that, if the claimants are entitled 
to recover, there is due to the estate of Aaron Van Camp from the defendants the sum 
of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($38,750), and similarly due 
the estate of Virginius P. Chapin the sum of twenty-one thousand three hundred and 
fifty dollars ($21,350). 

CONCLUSION OP LAW. 

Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the court decide, as a conclusion of law; that 
the petition should be dismissed. 



Nott, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: 

It must be conceded that the proceedings of the consular officer, as detailed in the 
findings in this case, were arbitrary and illegal. It must also be conceded that the 
claimants have exhausted their legal remedy against the wrongdoer and have recovered 
nothing for the wrongs and injuries that were done to them. On these facts the pri- 
mary question arises whether the Government — whether any government — can be 
held liable. 

The established principle is that a government is not responsible for the tortious 
acts of its officers generally; and it is manifest that in order to create any such liability 
there must have been either authorization or ratification. (Buron v. Denman, 2 
Exch., R., 167.) 

In this case there was neither. Whether a Secretary of State can by his words or 
his silence so authorize the acts of a consular officer as to create a liability on the part 
of the Government is a question which the court need not consider. The letter writ- 
ten by the consular officer to the Secretary of State, set forth in the findings, and the 
nonresponse of the Secretary, while it may show very lax administration on the part 
of the State Department incompatible with good government and an honest admin- 
istration in the consular office, falls very far short of establishing an implied sanction 
for the wrongs and abuses which the consular officer subsequently perpetrated. 

As to ratification, the payment into the Treasury of a small portion of the money 
wrung from the deceased claimants by the consular officer on the final settlement of 
his accounts can not be regarded as a ratification by a responsible branch of the Gov- 
ernment. The utmost that could be claimed from it would be that the injured party 
was entitled to the money; and that right has been recognized by the payment of the 
money to the deceased claimants. 

The question then comes down to the special act conferring jurisdiction upon the 
court (act 6th February, 1903, 32 Stat. L., p. 1065). 

This statute refers the claim to the court and confers jurisdiction ' ' to hear and deter- 
mine the question of the liability of the United States." But the important and con- 
trolling clause is ' ; And in the event the said court shall be of the opinion that the United 
States are justly liable, under all the circumstances of the said case, for the losses and dam- 
ages sustained by the said decedents by reason of the act of their officers in the premises, 
the said court shall render judgment in favor of the claimants." 

If by this provision it is intended that the court shall judge the case according to 
the principles of law or equity which guide and govern courts, it must be held that 
the United States are not liable. They neither authorized the acts complained of, 
nor ratified them, nor adopted them, nor received a benefit from them. If by the 
provision it is intended that the court shall pass upon the ethical question whether 
the United States should assume responsibility for the acts of one of their officers in 
a distant region of the earth of a most flagitious character, whereby citizens of the 
United States suffered great wrongs and injuries, it must be answered that courts are 
not established to determine ethical questions, and that such a question as this case 
presents is not one for judicial determination, but for the exercise of legislative dis- 
cretion. 



876 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

t 
There have been repeated cases in this court where special acts conferring jurisdic- 
tion have used the words "just and equitable," or some such equivalent — cases in 
which it has been contended that the court could go beyond the confines of the legal 
and the equitable and do what seemed to it just and right. Such contentions have 
never succeeded. In this case the language of the statute is broader than that of any 
other statute of like character; but where the intent of a statute is that a court shall 
render between litigants a final judicial judgment at law or decree in equity no breadth 
of language can enable a court to do so except by judicial methods and pursuant to 
established principles of law or equity. Be the language of a statute what it may, 
the plaintiff who can not recover according to law can not attain the final, unques- 
tionable legal right of a judicial judgment. 

The case of Cumming (22 C. Cls. R., 345; 130 U. S. R., 452) was adverted to on the 
argument; and it is true that there this court rendered judgment in favor of the claim- 
ant. But in that case the officers of the United States had not been guilty of a criminal 
or malicious intent, or even of a personally tortious act. The injury to the claimant 
has been caused by the superzealousness of internal-revenue officers exercised on 
behalf of the Government, and as they supposed, in furtherance of its interests. The 
Government reaped, or might have reaped, a benefit from their zeal. It was a case 
where the act of the servant was in the business of the master — a case where a master 
would have been liable for the act of the servant, provided always that the master was 
not the National Government. Congress have sometimes — as in cases of marine tort — 
waived the principle that the Government is not liable for the tort or negligence of its 
officers, and have retroactively placed upon the Government the same responsibility 
which rests upon every city and town and municipality and body corporate and ship- 
owner and individual in the country. But such statutes merely waive a special gov- 
ernmental defense; and merely enable the injured party to prosecute his case against 
the Government as he would prosecute it against any other defendant; and they still 
leave it incumbent upon him to proceed by legal methods and means, and incumbent 
upon the court to be guided and limited by established principles of law. 
The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed. 

TO PERMIT AN ACTION TO BE COMMENCED BY AMERICAN CITIZENS 
FOR VESSELS SEIZED IN BERING SEA. 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred Senate bill 390, report 
the same with sundry amendments and recommend its passage. 

The same measure was offered in the House of Representatives and referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 

That committee took the opinion of the Attorney-General as to the propriety of the 
proposed legislation, which being favorable to the bill, the committee reported it 
to the House of Representatives favorably with a written report as follows : 

"The purpose of the foregoing bill is to give to citizens of the United States the 
right to commence an action in the circuit court of the ninth judicial district to recover 
from the United States damages for the unlawful seizure, by officers of the United 
States, of vessels and cargoes belonging to said citizens, and confiscating and selling 
the same. The history and facts out of which the claims for damages arise are as 
follows: 

"The United States having claimed exclusive jurisdiction of that part of Bering Sea 
inclosed within the boundaries of Alaska, as ceded by Russia, and Russia having 
claimed dominion of the waters of that sea west of said boundary line, each nation 
treated Bering as a mare clausum. Acting upon this claim of exclusive jurisdiction, 
the United States, by official order of the Secretary of the Treasury, instructed the 
commanders of the armed ships of this Government to seize all vessels and arrest 
and deliver to the proper authorities any or all persons detected in the taking of seals 
in any part of said sea. In the execution of this order a large number of such 
vessels, the property of British subjects, and a large number, the property of citizens 
of the United States, were seized and otherwise interfered with, to the loss and 
damage of owners and other parties interested in their voyages. Russia, in like, 
manner, in the part of Bering Sea claimed to be under her dominion, made seizures 
of the same class and character of vesesls belonging to citizens of the United States 
and to the subjects of Great Britain. 

' ' Thereupon Great Britain denied to the United States and Russia the exclusive 
jurisdiction to Bering Sea, by which these seizures were justified by them, and the 
issue of jurisdiction was finally arbitrated between the United States and Great 
Britain at Paris, under the treaty of February 29, 1892. Though the contention of 
the United States was ably sustained, the arbitral decision was that Bering is an 
open sea, and that municipal jurisdiction has no vigor upon its waters beyond the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 877 

3-mile limit. After this settlement of jurisdictional rights, as was agreed between 
the United States and Great Britain by the articles of February, 1896, a judicial 
co mm ission was constituted by the two Governments to examine the claims for 
indemnity made by the subjects of Great Britain for the seizure of their vessels and 
interference with their voyages in Bering Sea. The articles provided that this com- 
mission should meet at Victoria, in British Columbia, and proceed to the discharge 
of its duties. There were filed before and considered by the commission 23 claims, 
aggregating $1,289,008.77. 

' ' Counsel for the United States were under the disadvantage of the session being 
held in Victoria, the outfitting port of the sealing fleet and of the British claimants, 
where the population was hostile to the case of the United States, by reason of per- 
sonal and commercial relations with the British sealers and their occupation. 
Requiring evidence on the question of value involved in the British claims, counsel 
for the United States depended on the American sealers, whose expert testimony, 
when requested, was given, though their own vessels had been seized and their 
property taken from them by the United States, in like manner as the British subjects. 
These American sealers organized themselves to find testimony for their Government 
in reducing the British claims to legitimate volume, and also to physically protect 
themselves and the witnesses among them from the personal violence which was 
often threatened and from the assaults that were made by the sympathizers with the 
British claimants. By the testimony of these Americans, counsel for the United 
States were able to reduce the British claims from $1,289,008.77 down to $463,454.27, 
principal and interest, thus saving to the United States $825,554.50. 

"The American sealers rendered this essential service to their Government under 
circumstances of difficulty and some danger to themselves, without exacting any 
promise of requital by consideration and payment of their own losses. But the 
counsel of the United States felt that their honorable and patriotic conduct deserved 
that their rights be determined, that their losses might be indemnified. Some of 
these American sealers had also been despoiled by Russia in her part of Bering Sea, 
and subsequently to the Victoria award the United States demanded that Russia 
indemnify them. This demand was arbitrated at The Hague by Doctor Asser, who 
decided for the Americans, and Russia promptly paid the award. Great Britain is 
now demanding indemnity for her subjects whose property was seized by Russia in 
the same manner, and the matter is under diplomatic arrangement for payment. 

"By the foregoing it will be seen that the United States has indemnified the sealers 
who were subjects of Breat Gritain; Russia has indemnified those who were citizens 
of the United States that were despoiled in her waters, and is about to indemnify in 
like manner and for like cause the subjects of Great Britain, and that the equities 
involved have been passed upon at Paris, Victoria, and The Hague. The only group 
left without indemnity, and suffering poverty from the loss of their property, is that 
from which came the witnesses whose testimony protected the Government at Vic- 
toria. Senate file 3410 is to give them their day in court that their rights may have 
judicial examination. The statements following, by counsel of the United States in 
the judicial arbitration at Victoria, extend the foregoing by facts and references." 



Memorandum by Don M. Dickinson, sometime senior counsel of the United States in their 
defense against the claims of Great Britain for seizures of sealing ships and other prop- 
erty in Bering Sea, besides other damages provided to be recovered in the cases scheduled 
in the convention between the two nations of February 8, 1896. 

"By the treaty of 1892 the United States and Great Britain agreed to submit the 
issue of the exclusive jurisdiction of Bering Sea to arbitration. By Article VIII of 
said treaty it was agreed that either nation might submit to the arbitrators any 
questions of fact involved in claims arising in the disputed jurisdiction, and ask for 
a finding thereon, the question of the amount of liability of either Government upon 
the facts found to be subject of further negotiation. Under that treaty the issue was 
arbitrated at Paris, and the issue of jurisdiction was decided adversely to the claim 
of the United States. In their finding of facts under Article VIII the arbitrators 
found that the several searches and seizures of ships and goods and the several 
arrests of crews and masters mentioned in the schedule to the British case were 
made by authority of the United States Government, and such seizures, arrests, fines, 
and imprisonments were for alleged breaches of the municipal law of the United 
States, committed beyond the 3-mile limit. 

" This made the United States liable for such seizures and other acts and left the 
amount of such liability and the evidence to determine it to further negotiation. This 
was had in the convention between the United States and Great Britain of February 8, 



878 allowance of certain claims. 

1896, by which it was stipulated "that all claims on account of injuries sustained by 
persons in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to claim compensation from the 
United States, and arising by virtue of the treaty aforesaid (of 1892), the award and 
findings of the said tribunal of arbitration shall be referred to two commissioners, one 
of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States and the other by 
Her Britannic Majesty, and each of whom shall be learned in the law." 

The claims described included all whatsoever arising in the treaty of 1892, and the 
award and findings thereunder. 

' ' The convention of 1896 also stipulated that the Commission ' shall meet at Victoria, 
in British Columbia, and after taking an oath that they will fairly and impartially 
investigate such claims and render a just decision thereon they shall proceed jointly 
to the discharge of their duties.' 

" In my report to the honorable Secretary of State, January 8, 1898, I had the honor 
to say of Victoria as the place of hearing: 

" ' We were brought for the hearing to the principal seat of the pelagic sealing industry 
of Canada and Great Britain. At that port the complaining British ships were for the 
most part outfitted for Bering Sea. Among this population from which testimony was 
to be drawn there was naturally a hostile feeling toward the United States and toward 
any person among them having knowledge of the facts who showed any disposition to 
furnish information in chief on the stand for this Government, or to furnish informa- 
tion on which the statements of the witnesses for Great Britain might be tested 
on cross-examination.' 

"All questions having been settled except the amount of liability, the crux of the 
case of the United States was the finding of testimony to fix that at a just and proper 
sum in each case. The evidence to do this was presented by American sealers, and 
there was no other source from which to seek it. Without their testimony and the 
facts they could furnish for use in guiding the cross-examination of the British wit- 
nesses counsel for the United States could have been practically compelled to accept 
the amounts and proofs submitted in the British case. In this emergency counsel 
requested the American sealers to give their Government the benefit of their testi- 
mony and knowledge, though aware that it had also seized, destroyed, or alienated 
their ships and property and interfered with their voyages in Bering Sea. The 
Americans responded to the call of their country, and, led by Captains McLean, 
Minor, and Raynor, organized a force which industriously hunted up testimony for 
the American counsel, and, as stated in my report to the honorable Secretary of State 
of January 8, 1898, 'enabling them to sift and expose fictitious claims and to reduce 
unreasonable and exorbitant valuations to reasonable proportions, and by affording 
counsel who conducted examinations of witnesses some equipment in knowledge of 
facts and of the men.' 

" Conspicuous amongst the Americans was Capt. Alexander McLean. He owned a 
half interest in two ships seized by the United States for which Great Britain 
demanded indemnity. His coowner, a British subject, had sworn before the Paris 
tribunal that he was the sole owner. The registry of the ships did not disclose 
Captain McLean's interest. Under the stipulations nothing could be awarded to him, 
an American. But a full award to the two ships would have benefited him to the 
extent of his equities in them. Under the circumstances, this brave and honest 
man made oath before the Commission to his part ownership, when by silent 
assent to the perfidy of his partner he would have been benefited himself. Not 
only did Captain McLean lose by his truthfulness, but his activity in behalf of the 
United States subjected him to many unpleasant experiences and personal risk at 
the hands of the British claimants and their friends in Victoria. Surely such a man 
and his countrymen, the American sealers, who joined, defended, and sustained him, 
not only deserves the consideration of his Government, but has earned the praise of 
the Psalmist given to ' him who sweareth to his own hurt, and change th not.' 

" Counsel for the United States being driven, by construction of the terms of the 
convention, to a hearing of every case from beginning to end at Victoria, of neces- 
sity had to bring these American sealers as witnesses into that seat of inimical senti- 
ment and to subject such of them as were resident there to its rigors. But their 
unfailing loyalty and intimate knowledge of the value of vessels, outfits, and catch 
on hand when seized were so useful to the Government that by it counsel were 
enabled to scale the sum of the claims made from $1,289,008.87 down to $413,979.27, 
a reduction of nearly two-thirds. As the United States had realized from the sale 
of the libeled property the sum of $83,073.72, the award called for only $380,380.55 
to be paid by this Government. 

"To state fully the result of the trial: The British claims, including costs and two 
ships which counsel succeeded in excluding from consideration, and personal claims, 
amounted, principal and interest, to $1,417,137.93, while the award was only 
188.91 principal and $169,265.36 interest, a total of $463,454.27. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 879 



"It is to be observed that by the Paris award, which was the law of the sea, the 
taking of seals by the nationals of every country was as lawful beyond the 3-mile 
limit as was the taking of fish on the high seas beyond that limit at the time of the 
seizures of the property of the British subjects tried out at Victoria. It was as unlawful 
for the armed vessels of the United States to take or destroy ships or their property 
beyond the 3-mile limit in Bering Sea as in any other part of the high seas. It is quite 
apparent that there was no law of the United States intended to discriminate against 
our own citizens. It was intended by all the seizures of American and other vessels 
in Bering Sea to test the authority of the United States over those waters as against 
other powers, and especially Great Britain. So that, as a matter of law, there was no 
municipal law punishing pelagic sealing as against our own citizens, or based on any 
other theory than that the United States had an exclusive jurisdiction of those waters, 
with the ultimate object, if it were found by arbitration between the nations that we 
had no exclusive jurisdiction, to arrive finally at an international agreement by which 
sealing would be regulated in those waters. 

" By there being no adverse internationl law by which Americans could be pun- 
ished for 'sealing in those waters and no municipal law for any other purpose than 
this, the Americans who suffered from seizure, interference, and destruction of their 
property in an occupation agreed by all not to have been in violation of any treaty 
are entitled to reclamation. Some of them, by freely exposing their nationality, lost 
their interest in British ships. By coming forward and supporting the position taken 
by their country in regard to the protection of seals, every man of them sacrificed 
himself by clearly praiseworthy and patriotic conduct. They aided their country 
at Victoria in exposing the frauds, and abating extravagant values in the British 
claims. Their service was invaluable. They had to conquer personal safety for the 
witnesses of the United States in Victoria by aggressive fighting for it on the streets. 
I, as of counsel, vouch for it that it was owing to them that many British claims 
were entirely thrown out, and the final award was about one-third of the aggregate 
amount claimed. 

" If any American presented a claim at Victoria under cover of the British flag, and 
there were such, he can take no benefit under this bill. But Americans who did not 
attempt such practices and who suffered loss should be given the same measure of 
relief as that accorded by the United States in the convention and awarded to British 
claimants at Victoria. 

"chronological. , 

"The claims of British citizens were heard by a commission appointed pursuant to 
the convention of February 8, 1896, between the United States and Gereat Britain. 

" The award of this commission was paid in pursuance of an act passed by the second 
session of the Fifty-fifth Congress and approved June 15, 1898, entitled 'An act making 
an appropriation to pay the Bering Sea awards.' 

" The claims of citizens of the United States have never been presented before any 
tribunal. 

"The vessels of the claimants and property of the claimants were seized for an 
alleged violation of sections 1956 and 1957 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States. 

"The first order for seizure was issued by the Treasury Department under date 
April 21, 1886. Instructions were issued in 1887, under date of May 10 and May 28, 
by the Treasury Department that seizures should be made. 

"The second session of the Fiftieth Congress passed an act, approved March 2, 1889, 
entitled ' An act to provide for the protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska. ' Section 
3 of this act provided that it should be the duty of the President to issue a proclamation 
warning all persons against violation of the provisions of section 1956, which section 
was by this statute declared to include all the dominion of the United States in the 
waters of Bering Sea. 

"A proclamation was issued by the President of the United States (26 Stat. L. , 1543) 
warning all persons against entering the 'waters of Bering Sea within the dominion 
of the United States.' 

"The contention for damages was and is that if the' treaty of cession of Russia (con- 
cluded March 29, 1867) did not give the United States jurisdiction over any portion 
of Bering Sea outside of the ordinary 3-rnile limit from the shores of the mainland 
and islands, the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of 
Bering Sea, and the seizures of vessels engaged in the lawful pursuit of hunting for 
seals when outside the 3-mile limit were illegal. 



880 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

"Great Britain raised this question on behalf of its citizens and the treaty was con- 
cluded (27 Stat..L., 101), providing for a tribunal that should ascertain the extent of 
the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea. 

' ' The award of the tribunal of arbitrators constituted under this treaty (printed in 
Vol. 1, American Reprint Fur Seal Arbitration, etc., p. 77) determined 'that the 
United States has not any right of protection or property in the fur seals frequenting 
the islands of the United States in Bering Sea when such seals are found outside the 
ordinary 3-mile limit.' 

"The second session of the Fifty-third Congress enacted a law (28 Stat. L., 52) to 
give effect to the award of the tribunal of arbitration. 

"Congress, by the terms of this last-mentioned act, admitted that the language of 
sections 1956 and 1957 did not make illegal the taking of fur seals in the waters of 
Bering Sea outside the ordinary 3-mile limit, for this act provided that the two gov- 
ernments (Great Britain and the United States) should prevent their citizens from 
taking seals within a limited time on the high seas in the part of the Pacific Ocean 
inclusive of the Bering Sea, which is situated, etc. 

"February 8, 1896, a convention was concluded between the United States and 
Great Britain for the settlement of the claims presented by Great Britain against the 
United States. > 

" December 17, 1897, the commissioners agreed upon an award, but the claims of the 
American citizens, if any were presented, were excluded by the high commissioners. 

"The circuit court for one of the California districts should be given jurisdiction to 
hear the claims of the American citizens who suffered the same damages as British 
subjects, who have been paid by this Government. 

"The records and files of the Treasury and State Departments disclose the names of 
all sealing schooners seized or interfered with, including those from which seal skins 
or hunting equipment were taken, and including all schooners which were merely 
warned or driven out of Bering Sea during the sealing seasons. So that the number 
of claims under the proposed bill can be fixed and limited by those records. 

"The foregoing statement of the case is made by me in discharge of an obligation 
of honor incurred by their helpful and patriotic conduct in behalf of their Govern- 
ment during the trial of the British claims at Victoria. I have and can have no other 
interest in their case. Their Government owes them indemnity for their losses, and 
the procedure provided in the Senate bill amply protects its rights, while giving them 
the opportunity to have theirs ascertained. If I can serve them further, it will be 
my pleasure, with no other award than the satisfaction of requiting their unselfish 
patriotism at Victoria." 

The statement of Hon. Don M. Dickinson, incorporated in the foregoing report, pre- 
sents a case that appeals forcibly to the sense of justice and equity of the Government 
of the United States for the compensation of the losses and damages sustained by our 
citizens through the enforcement of laws that were in effect annulled by the subse- 
quent award of the Bering Sea Commission, that is referred to in this bill. 

The awards of compensation to British owners of sealing vessels for seizures by the 
United States under like conditions, that were made by the International Commission 
appointed under the convention between Great Britain and the United States of Feb- 
ruary 8, 1896 — of which Commission Mr. Dickinson was a member — while they could 
not make provision for our citizens, clearly show that they are entitled to like com- 
pensation for the seizure of their vessels. 

The object of the bill is to enable them to establish their claims in a judicial pro- 
ceeding before the circuit court of the United States for the ninth circuit, which is the 
nearest court of competent jurisdiction to the localities where the seizures were made, 
and is most accessible to the witnesses, who, for the most part, are seafaring men re- 
siding in that vicinity. 

The rulings of the Commission of 1896 that made the awards in favor of British sub- 
jects are worthy'of consideration by the circuit court as to the measure of damages and 
the proper scope of inquiry as to the right of compensation to be considered by the 
court, lest the committee doubt the propriety of adopting them by act of Congress, 
and recommend the amendment of the bill as to that and some other features that do 
not materially affect the equitable and just right of the claimants to the relief they 
seek. 

The question of the allowance of interest on the claims is left to the just discretion 
of the court as to each claim that is presented, according to its merits. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 881 

GEORGE IVERS, ADMINISTRATOR. 

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the above claim, have carefully 
examined the same and find the facts to be as follows, viz: 

This claim was referred to the Court of Claims to find the facts; the same was tried, 
with statement of the case and finding of facts as follows: 

(Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2148. Henrietta Ivers, administratrix of William Ivers, deceased, 

v. the United States.] 

STATEMENT OF CASE. 

The claim in the above-entitled case, for the value of a certain building rented by 
the original claimant, William Ivers, to the military forces of the United States for 
then use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to 
the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 
10th day of February, 1888. 

P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Bran- 
nigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- 
tection of the interests of the United States. 

pThe case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 1892. 
The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: 

That she has a claim against the United States for the value of a certain building 
rented by the decedent of Colonel Donaldson, chief commissary of the United States 
for the District of New Mexico, on or about January 1, 1862. 

That said building was rented for storage of commissary stores and supplies and 
other property belonging to the United States. , 

That while said building aforesaid was in the care, custody, and occupation of 
the military forces of the United States at that place, and filled with commissary 
stores and supplies, on or about the 4th day of March, 1862, it was burned or con- 
sumed by fire by order of the commanding officer of the United States in that district, 
to prevent the stores and supplies in said building from falling into the hands of the 
public enemy, and without fault of the decedent. 

That subsequently, upon the application of the decedent to the United States com- 
manding officer of said military district, on or about the 10th day of November, 1862, 
the commanding general issued Special Orders, No. 196, convening a board of officers 
to assess the damages sustained by the decedent on account of the destruction of his 
property. 

That pursuant to said orders the board convened, organized, and took testimony 
upon the subject, and, in summing up their labors, the board says: 

"In summing up the proceedings in the case of Mr. William Ivers, claimant for 
damages for the destruction of his house, consumed by fire by orders of the com- 
mander of the district of Santa Fe, in March, 1862, the board renders the following 
opinion: 

"The board is clearly of opinion from the evidence adduced that the building 
owned by William Ivers, and formerly used by the Government as a storehouse for 
commissary and quartermaster stores, in the city of Santa Fe, was burned by direc- 
tion of the district commander. 

"The board, upon a careful estimation of the damages sustained by Mr. William 
Ivers, unanimously concur in the belief * * *. 

"From the evidence of master builders and mechanics, wholly uninterested, and 
who were well acquainted with the property prior to its destruction, that fifteen 
hundred dollars seems a liberal allowance to be reimbursed to Mr. William Ivers for 
the destruction of his property. 

' ■* * * * * * # 

"This sum to be considered as a full compensation to Mr. William Ivers for all 
damages sustained by him. 

"The board is further of the opinion that in issuing the order filed in these pro- 
ceedings the officer in command of the district had the best interests of the Govern- 
ment in view, not wishing the stores to fall into the hands of the enemy, who 
threatened the city at that time, and that no blame whatever should be attached 
to him." 

That said William Ivers, the decedent, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout that war, and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. 
That during his lifetime the deceased presented said claim to the United States 
Treasury Department for payment, and that on or about March 11, 1868, the Third 
Auditor of the Treasury referred the same to the War Department for adjudication, 
and on or about December 11, 1869, the War Department returned the same to 

S. Rep. 382, 60-1 56 



882 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

the Treasury Department, it not being a case for adjudication under the act of 
July 4, 1864. 

That no payment or compensation has ever been received from any source on 
account of said claim for the destruction of said property, but that the claim is still 
due and owing to the claimant from the United States after allowing all just credits 
and offsets. That no assignment or transfer has been made of the claim or any part 
thereof, and that the claimant knows the facts set forth in the foregoing petition, and 
believes the same to be true. 

The court, upon considering the foregoing petition and the briefs and arguments 
of counsel on both sides, orders that the petition and case be dismissed on the ground 
that the court is without jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of section 3 of the 
act of March 3, 1883, chapter 116 (1 Supp. to Rev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 403), the claim 
being one growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army during 
the war for the suppression of the rebellion. 

By the Court. 

Filed October 31, 1902. 

A true copy. 

Test this 30th day of November, 1894. 

[seal.] John Randolph, 

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 

It will be seen that the building in question was under rent by Colonel Donaldson, 
chief commissary of the United States for the district of New Mexico, from on or about 
January 1, 1862, having been rented from William Ivers for storage of commissary 
stores and supplies and other property belonging to the United States, and that it 
was in the care and custody and occupation of the United States authorities for that 
purpose and under the lease on the 4th of March, 1862, and filled with commissary 
stores and supplies belonging to the United States, when it was ordered to be burned, 
and was consumed by fire by order of the commanding officer of the United States 
at that place, to destroy the military stores to prevent them from falling into the hands 
of the public enemy. 

The exact terms of the lease have not been given, but we have a right to assume that 
the said lease set out in substance that the claimant leased the premises of the United 
States to be used as a place of storage of commissary supplies, etc., and that the com- 
missary agreed to take it for that purpose and to pay the claimant a rent of 

dollars per month for its use so long as the Department required its use, and finally to 
surrender up the premises to the owner in as good condition as when the Department 
went into possession, usual wear excepted, and we have a right to assume that Mr. 
William Ivers rented his property under (in substance) on such reasonable and usual 
conditions. 

While it was so occupied and in the possession of the commissary department of the 
United States it was ordered by the commanding officer to be burned to prevent the 
stores and supplies stored in the premises from falling into the hands of the public 
enemy, which seems to have at that time threatened the capture of the place. Thus 
the private property of claimant was taken for public use, for which he is entitled to 
just compensation. And the Supreme Court of the United States has settled beyond 
all doubt this principle of law and. justice in Mitchell v. Harmony (13 Howard, p. 115), 
and a large number of cases cited. Page 134, 13 Howard, part of the opinion of the 
court. 

"There are without doubt occasions in which private property may lawfully be 
taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public 
enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with particular duty, may impress 
private property into public service and take it for public use. 

"Unquestionably, in such cases, the Government is bound to make full compensa- 
tion to the owner." 

Subsequently, about November 10, 1862, claimant applied to the commanding officer 
of the military district for consideration in regard to his loss; and Special Orders, No. 
196, convening a board of officers to assess the damages sustained by the now decedent 
on account of the destruction of his property. 

The board convened and organized, took testimony, and in summing up the pro- 
ceedings in the case of William Ivers, claimant for damages for the destruction of his 
house, consumed by fire by order of the commander of the district of Santa Fe, in 
March, 1862, the board renders the following opinion: 

"The board is clearly of the opinion, from the evidence adduced, that the building 
owned by William Ivers, and formerly used by the Government as a storehouse for 
commissary and quartermaster in the city of Santa Fe, was burned by order of the 
district commander. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 883 

"The board, upon careful examination of the damages sustained by Mr. William 
Ivers, unanimously concur in the belief, from the evidence of master builders and 
mechanics wholly uninterested, and who were well acquainted with the property 
prior to its destruction, that §1,500 seems a liberal allowance to be reimbursed to 
William Ivers for the destruction of his property, this sum to be considered as a full 
compensation to Mr. William Ivers for all damages sustained by him. 

"The board is further of the opinion that in issuing the order filed in these pro- 
ceedings the officer in command of the district had the best interests of the Govern- 
ment in view, not wishing the stores to fall into the hands of the enemy, who threatened 
the city at that time, and that no blame should attach to him." 

The said William Ivers, the decedent, was loyal to the Government of the United 
States throughout the war. and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. 

William Ivers, during his lifetime, presented his claim, on or about March, 1868, to 
the Treasury Department, where it was sent to the War Department, and finally 
returned to the Treasury Department, with the conclusion that it was not a case for 
adjudication under the act of July 4, 1864. 

Claimant came by petition to Congress when it was referred to the Court of Claims 
to find the facts, where testimony was taken and the case tried, etc.; but the case was 
dismissed for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction, owing to the 3d sec- 
tion of the act of March 3, 1883, commonly known as the "Bowman Act," the claim 
growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army during the war 
for the suppression of the rebellion. 

In view of the facts set out in this case and the law governing the same, your com- 
mittee are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for the 
loss of his property and recommend the passage of the bill. 

JOHN H. HAMITER. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4024) for the relief of 
John H. Hamiter, having considered the same, recommend that the said bill be 
passed. 

The bill provides for the payment to John H. Hamiter the sum of 13,590.47, the 
proceeds of the sale of 53 bales of cotton sold in 1865, the net proceeds being placed 
in the Treasury of the United States. 

The chairman of the Committee on Claims referred this bill to the Secretary of the 
Treasury for a report, which report is as follows: 

Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, February 2, 1906. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, 
inclosing Senate bill 3283, "For the relief of John H. Hamiter." 

The bill proposes to appropriate §3,590.47, the proceeds of 53 bales of cotton sold 
by the Government in 1865, and placed in the Treasury of the United States. 
You request report on the bill. 

In reply, I have the honor to report that 53 bales of cotton were collected from 
John H. Hamiter, in Lafayette County, Ark., in October, 1865, shipped to New York, 
and sold. The net proceeds of the 53 bales were §3,590.47, which amount was placed 
in the Treasury. 

Respectfully, L. M. Shaw, 

Secretary. 
Hon. C. W. Fulton, 

Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate. 

The affidavit of Mr. Hamiter shows the circumstances of the taking of this cotton 
and also that under the President's amnesty proclamation of May 29, 1865, that Mr. 
Hamiter had taken the oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States prior 
to the seizure of the cotton in question. 

• This cotton was not "captured." The Supreme Court of the United States, in 
Ninth Wallace, page 540, in the case of the United States v. Padelford, clearly defined 
the meaning of the word "captured " as follows: 

"As early as the 3d of July, 1863, the Secretary of the Treasury, in a circular letter 
of instructions addressed to the supervising special agents of the Department, charged . 
with the duty of collecting abandoned and captured property under the act of March 
12, 1863, defined captured property as property "which had been seized or taken 
from hostile possession by the military and naval forces of the United States." This 
definition must be taken as the interpretation practically given to the act by the 
Department of the Government charged with its execution; and we think it correct." 

This cotton was not taken from "hostile" possession, but, on the contrary, was 
taken from the possession of an^individual who had been pardoned by the President's 



884 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

proclamation, and his taking the oath under it fully restored him to all his property 
rights. 

It was not "abandoned" at any time, but was in the personal possession of Hamiter 
and within the inclosure around his residence. At the time of the seizure Mr. Hamiter 
was temporarily absent on a visit to relatives in Louisiana, but his residence and 
property was under the personal charge of Isaac Shepherd, who forbade the taking 
of the cotton. It appears that Mr. Fuqua, the agent who seized the cotton, had been 
the personal guest of Mr. Hamiter for a night only a short time previous to the seizure. 

This cotton had been removed from Mr. Hamiter' s plantation to his residence; it 
had never been sold, and was never claimed by anybody up to the time of the seizure 
by Fuqua. There were about 180 bales of cotton taken, although the proceeds of the 
sale of only 53 bales, amounting to $3,590.47 net, seems to have found its way into 
the Treasury. 

In the case above referred to, of the United States v. Padelford, on page 542, Ninth 
Wallace, the property in question had been actually captured in time of war and in 
the midst of military operations, but after the claimant had under an amnesty procla- 
mation of the President taken the oath of allegiance, the court, in a unanimous opinion, 
used the following language: 

"In the case of Garland, this court held the effect of a pardon to be such 'that in 
the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense; ' 
and in the case of Armstrong's foundry, we held that the general pardon granted to 
him relieved him from a penalty which he had incurred to the United States. It 
follows that at the time of the seizure of the petitioner's property he was purged of 
whatever offense against the laws of the United States he had committed by the acts 
mentioned in the findings, and relieved from any penalty which he might have 
incurred. It follows, further, that if the property had been seized before the oath 
was taken, the faith of the Government was pledged to its restoration upon the taking 
of the oath in good faith. We can not doubt that the petitioner's right to the property 
in question, at the time of the seizure, was perfect, and that it remains perfect not- 
withstanding the seizure." 

In the same case, on page 543, the court further says: 

"Under the proclamation and the act, the Government is a trustee, holding the 
proceeds of the petitioner's property for his benefit, and having been fully reimbursed 
for all expenses incurred in that character, loses nothing by the judgment, which 
simply awards to the petitioner what is his own." 

The case in which the court in a unanimous opinion made these declarations was 
in all respects parallel to this case except that in the Padelford .case the property was 
actually captured in the city of Savannah by the Federal Army when the capture of 
that city was made on December 21, 1864, by the forces of the United States. 

In the case of Kline v. The United States (13th Wallace, page 137) the court held 
that, while all private property belonging to disloyal persons South was liable to 
confiscation, nevertheless — 

"No titles were divested in the insurgent States unless in pursuance of a judgment 
rendered after due legal proceedings. The Government recognized to the fullest 
extent the humane maxims of the modern law of nations, which exempt private 
property of noncombatant enemies from capture as booty of war. Even the law of 
confiscation was sparingly applied." 

And on page 142 in the same case — "We conclude, therefore, that the title to the 
proceeds of the property which came to the possession of the Government by capture 
or abandonment,, with the exceptions already noticed, was in no case divested out 
of the original owner. It was for the Government itself to determine whether these 
proceeds should be restored to the owner or not. The promise of the restoration 
of all rights of property decides that question affirmatively as to all persons who availed 
themselves of the proffered pardon. It was competent for the President to annex 
to his offer of pardon any conditions or qualifications he should see fit; but after those 
conditions and qualifications had been satisfied, the pardon and its connected 
promises took full effect. The restoration of the proceeds became the absolute right . 
of the persons pardoned on application within two years from the close of the war. 
It was, in fact, promised for an equivalent. 'Pardon and restoration of political 
rights" were ' in return 11 for the oath and its fulfillment. To refuse it would be a 
breach of faith not less 'cruel and astounding" than to abandon the freed people 
whom the Executive had promised to maintain in their freedom." 

Judge Miller, who will always be remembered as a great and able judge, dissented 
from this opinion of the court, and in his dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice 
Bradley, concurred, he said: 

" But I have not been able to bring my mind to concur in the proposition that 
under the act concerning captured and abandoned property, there remains in the 
former owner, who had given aid and comfort to the rebellion, any interest whatever 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 885 

in the property or its proceeds when it had been sold and paid into the Treasury or 
had been converted to the use of the public under that act." 

Further on in the same dissenting opinion, Judge Miller, in commenting on the 
Padelford case, in which case he had concurred with all the judges, said: 

"In that case the opinion makes a labored and successful effort to show that Padel- 
ford, the owner of the property, had secured the benefit of the amnesty proclamation 
before the property was seized under the same statute we are now considering. And 
it bases the right of Padelford to recover its proceeds in the Treasury on the fact that 
before the capture his status as a loyal citizen had been restored, and with it all his 
rights of property, although he had previously given aid and comfort to the rebellion. 
In this view I concurred with all my brethren. And I hold now that as long as the 
possession or title of property remains in the party, the pardon or the amnesty remits 
all right in the Government to forfeit or confiscate it." (The italics are Justice Miller's.) 

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the court was in error in its conclusions 
in the Kline cases, and that Justice Miller was right, it will be seen that the present 
case comes strictly within the rule suggested by him. Thus we have the unanimous 
opinion of all the judges in both the Padelford case and the Kline case that, under 
circumstances such as exist in this case, "all right in the Government to forfeit or 
confiscate" the property had been remitted, and that under the proclamation of the 
President and the action of petitioner in taking and faithfully keeping his oath of 
allegiance, "the Government is a trustee holding the proceeds of petitioner's prop- 
erty for his benefit; and having been fully reimbursed for all expenses incurred in 
that character the Government loses nothing by the return of the money which ' sim- 
ply awards to the petitioner what is his own.' " 

Under the circumstances of this case and the law as distinctly laid down by the 
Supreme Court of the United States it seems clear to the committee that the net 
proceeds of this 53 bales of cotton should be restored to the owner of the cotton, and 
we therefore recommend that the bill dp pass. — ■— — : 

TO PAY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WILLIAM CRAMP & SONS FOR BUILD- 
ING U. S. S. INDIANA. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Senate bill 3126, have had the 
same under consideration and beg leave to submit the following report: 

This a claim by the builders of the battle ship Indiana seeking reimbursement of 
the expenses they were put to, for the care, maintenance, preservation, insurance, 
and wharfage during a delay of two years after the expiration of the contract period, 
brought about by the failure of the United States to furnish them with the armor ' ' in 
the time and in the order necessary to carry on the work properly," as it had cove- 
nanted and agreed to do . The Court of Claims after a protracted trial found that the 
necessary and reasonable costs during this delay, which they found was solely and 
entirely due to the fault of the United States, amounted to 1177,823.55, but on account 
of a release given on May 10, 1894, at the time of an advance payment, by which the 
builders agreed to waive so much of the claim as accrued prior to that date, the court 
allowed only the expenses incurred after that date for a period of one year six months 
and nine days, and gave judgment for the sum of $135,560. (See findings of Court of 
Claims accompanying this report marked "Exhibit A.") The case was appealed to 
the Supreme Court and that court reversed the judgment upon the sole ground that 
a final receipt and release given May 19, 1896, upon the payment to the builders of 
the balance of the contract price, viz, $41,132.80, was intended by the parties to be a 
final settlement of the present claim, which the Court of Claims found amounted to 
$177,823.55 additional. The equities were not considered by that court, as fully 
appears in the correspondence between Mr. Justice Brewer, who delivered the opin- 
ion, and one of the counsel for the company, accompanying this report, marked 
"Exhibit B." 

The builders now ask that Congress, upon equitable grounds, shaH reimburse them 
for these-Bxpenses, and they file in support of their petition the affidavits of ex-Secre- 
tary of the Navy, General Tracy; his assistants, Admiral Hichborn, Chief of the 
Bureau of Construction, and ex-Naval Constructor Nixon, who designed the vessel, 
being all the Government officers that had any part in the preparation of the contract; 
of ex-Secretary Herbert, who took the receipt, and Mr. Charles H. Cramp, president 
of the company, who signed both contract and receipt, each and all unanimously 
declaring in specific terms that it was never the intent of either of the parties to the 
contract by the giving or accepting of the receipt to in any way waive, bar, or settle 
the claim now presented. (See Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G, herewith.) 

This evidence was not before the Supreme Court, and the facts now presented 
differ in this material respect from the case as presented to that court. The delays 



886 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

in furnishing the armor were caused by the praiseworthy desire of Secretary Tracy 
to obtain for these new vessels of war the most invulnerable armor that it was possible 
to procure. At that time the subject of armor plate was in its infancy, and new proc- 
esses of its manufacture were being devised and presented to the Department for 
adoption. A series of exhaustive tests and experiments were made, which consumed 
most of the contract period, and it was not until February, 1893, that the Secretary 
finally adopted the nickel-steel harveyized armor, and that surpassed all armor in 
any of the navies of the world. These delays had a similar effect upon the builders 
of the Oregon, Maine, Terror, and Texas, and these were the only vessels that were 
delayed from this cause aside from the Indiana and Massachusetts, built by the Cramp 
Company. The Richmond Locomotive Works, builders of the machinery for the 
Texas, and N. F. Palmer & Co. (the Quintard Iron Works), builders of the machinery 
of the Maine, have both been reimbursed by special acts of Congress on the recommen- 
dation of Secretaries Herbert, Morton, and Moody — notwithstanding they signed 
precisely the same final receipts and releases. (See Richmond case, 30 Stat., 1431; 
Palmer case, 33 Stat., 1397.) 

The Pneumatic Gun Carriage Company, builders of the Terror, recovered judgment 
in the Court of Claims, notwithstanding they signed the identical form of final receipt 
and release, that court holding, as it did in the Indiana case, that it did not relate to 
this class of claims, and Attorney-General Griggs acquiesced in that decision and 
declined to appeal the case, and that company was paid. (36 C. C. Rep., p. 71.) 
The Union Iron Works, by a supplemental contract relieved the United States of 
its obligation to take the vessel without armor as Article III of the contract provided, 
and in lieu thereof accepted a contract with Secretary Tracy by which the United 
States was to pay these expenses monthly as the delays occurred, and that company 
was so paid. (See affidavit ex-Secretary Tracy, Exhibit C.) The Cramp Company 
relied upon the obligation of the United States to take the vessel without armor, under 
Article III, and the Secretary concurred in this view of the obligation of the United 
States, and went so far as to detail officers to supervise the erection of temporary facili- 
ties to take the vessel to sea and weight it down to its normal draft, which was done 
at an additional expense to the builders of $17,000 (see twelfth findings, Court of 
Claims, Exhibit A), but on May 1, 1894, he arbitrarily refused to permit a trial trip 
to be made because, in his judgment, the interests of the United States would be best 
subserved by delaying the trial trip until the vessel was fully completed with all the 
armor on. 

It is shown by the affidavits of Admiral Hichborn (Exhibit D) and Secretary Tracy 
(Exhibit C) that the United States had no navy-yard at which these vessels could 
be taken care of. It may be that the company had the right to cut the vessel loose 
and let her float down the Delaware River to its destruction, but the United States 
then owed the company upward of $500,000 for work already performed and unpaid 
for, and the United States had already paid $2 300,000 on account of its construction, 
and to save this amount of Government property from destruction the company 
yielded to the request of the Secretary and cared for, preserved, and maintained the 
vessel at their yard for an additional one year, six months, and nine days, at an 
expense of $135 560, as found by the Court of Claims. Your committee can not 
believe that the company should now be punished for the performance of this most 
praiseworthy and -patriotic action, nor should the technical receipt be held to prevail 
over the conspicuous equities of the case. It may be true that a contractor should be 
careful in the wording of papers that he signs but if through want of care or inad- 
vertence the receipt does not express the real intent of the parties to it, it would be 
extremely unfair, if not positively dishonest, for one of the parties to try to enforce 
it against the other contrary to the intent of both. 

Your committee therefore report back Senate bill 3126 favorably and recommend 
that it do pass. 

Exhibit A. 

FINDINGS OP FACT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

[Court of Claims. No. 20858. (Decided January 29, 1906.) The William Cramp and Sons Ship and 
Engine Building Company v. The United States.] 

This case having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the evidence, 
makes the following 

FINDINGS OF FACT. 

I. The claimant herein is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of 
Pennsylvania, and carries on the business of ship and engine building, with its yards 
and plant and works located in the city of Philadelphia, in said State. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 887 

II. On November 19, 1890, the claimant entered into a contract with the United 
States, through their Secretary of the Navy, whereby, in consideration of the sum of 
$3,063,000, to be paid as provided in said contract, it agreed to construct and com- 
plete within three years from said date as in said contract provided, a seagoing, coast- 
line battle ship, designated as No. 1, and subsequently named the Indiana, all in 
accordance with the specifications attached to and made a part of said contract, which 
contract, marked "Exhibit W. C. & S. No. 1," is annexed to and made a part of the 
petition herein. 

III. Immediately after the making of said contract the claimant arranged and 
systematized a working programme for the construction of said vessel by organizing 
its working force so as to cooperate with each other in harmony on coordinate work, 
and to secure economy in the construction of the vessel within the contract time 
and to escape the penalties imposed thereby for delays. The claimant would have 
completed the vessel within the contract period if it had not been for the failure of 
the United States to furnish materials within the time and in the order to properly 
carry on the work, which by the terms of the contract they had agreed to furnish. 

By reason of the failure of the defendants to furnish the materials, which by the 
third clause of the contract they had agreed to furnish, within the time and in the 
order as aforesaid, the completion of the vessel was delayed for two years beyond the 
contract period. . , 

The armor to be furnished in accordance with said clause of the contract was obtained 
by the defendants from other contractors, who, without any fault on the part of the 
claimant, failed to complete the manufacture thereof in time for the defendants to 
deliver the same to the claimant as they had agreed to do. 

The various kinds of armor, including the necessary bolts, nuts, etc., were delivered 
as follows: 

Diagonal armor, beginning June 6, 1892, and ending July 3, 1892. 

Casemate armor, beginning March 16, 1893, and ending May 1, 1893. 

Conning tower tube, May 1, 1893. 

Barbette armor, beginning July 10, 1893, and ending September 23, 1893. 

Sponson armor, beginning December 2, 1893, and ending March 24, 1894. 

Ammunition tubes, beginning April 24, 1894. and ending May 22, 1894. 

Eight-inch turret, beginning September 22, 1894. and ending December 7, 1894. 

Conning tower shield and covers, complete October 5, 1894. 

Side armor, beginning August 13, 1894. and ending August 6, 1895. 

Thirteen-inch turrets, beginning May 16. 1895, and ending September 5. 1895. 

IV. On December 4, 1895, and after the completion and delivery of the vessel at 
the time hereinafter stated, the Secretary of the Navy decided that the cause of delay 
for the period of two years in the completion of the vessel was due to the failure of the 
United States to furnish the claimant the materials contracted to be furnished by 
them within the time and in the order to properly carry on the work; and for that 
reason the time within which to complete the vessel, and thereby release the claimant 
from the penalties provided for in the 19th paragraph of the contract, was on said 
date extended by the Secretary of the Navy a corresponding length of time, to wit, 
to November 19, 1895, on which latter date the vessel so contracted for was completed 
and delivered. 

V. On May 10, 1894, before the Secretary of the Navy had finally decided the cause 
of delay, as aforesaid, and before there had been a preliminary or conditional accept- 
ance of the vessel, owing to the failure of the defendants to furnish, in the order 
required, the material which they had agreed to furnish, the contract was modified, 
which modification is made a part of the petition herein and marked "Exhibit W. C. 
& S. No. 2," by the terms of which modification the defendants agreed to pay the 
claimant a portion of the reservations of installments, which under the original con- 
tract were not payable, as therein set forth, until after a preliminary or conditional 
acceptance of the vessel; and $234,830, being the amount of the reservations of the 
first 23 out of the 27 installments earned by the claimant, were paid on or about June 
20, 1894. The claimant, as provided in the modification aforesaid, furnished security 
against any loss to the defendants on account of such payment, but no demand for 
any refund was ever made upon it. In consideration of the payment aforesaid, the 
claimant, as recited in said modification, released the defendants "from all and every 
claim for loss or damage hitherto sustained by reason of any failure on the part of 
the" defendants to comply with its contract, "or on account of any delay hitherto 
occasioned " by them. 

_ To the modification of the contract and the release as aforesaid the claimant at the 
time does not appear to have made objection or protest. 

VI. On May 18, 1896, after the completion and delivery of the vessel, in accordance 
with the sixth paragraph of the nineteenth clause of the contract, the balance of the 
money due thereunder, but withheld in accordance therewith until the final accept- 



ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ance of the vessel, was paid to the claimant and the same was accepted and a release 
and receipt was executed therefor by it in the terms following: 

"Whereas by the eleventh clause of the contract dated November 19, 1890, by and 
between The William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, a cor- 
poration created under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and doing business at 
Philadelphia, in said State, represented by the President of said company, party of 
the first part, and the United States, represented by the Secretary of the Navy, party 
of the second part, for the construction of a seagoing coast-line battle ship of about 
ten thousand tons displacement, which, for the purpose of said contract, is designated 
and known as 'Coast-line battle ship No. 1,' it is agreed that a special reserve of sixty 
thousand dollars ($60,000) shall be held until the vessel shall have been finally tried; 
provided that such final trial shall take place within five months from and after the 
date of the preliminary or the conditional acceptance of the vessel ; and 

"Whereas by the sixth paragraph of the nineteenth clause of said contract it is 
further provided that when all the conditions, covenants, and provisions of said con- 
tract shall have been performed and fulfilled by and on the part of the party of the first 
part, said party of the first part shall be entitled, within ten days after the filing and 
acceptance of its claim, to receive the said special reserve or so much thereof as it 
may be entitled to on the execution of a final release to the United States in such form 
as shall be approved by the Secretary of the Navy of all claims of any kind or descrip- 
tion under or by virtue of said 'contract; and 

"Whereas the final trial of said vessel was completed on the eleventh day of April, 
1896; and 

"Whereas all the conditions, covenants, and provisions of said contract have been 
performed and fulfilled by and on the part of the party of the first part : 

"Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, the sum of forty-one thousand 
one hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty-six cents ($41,132.86) the balance of 
the aforesaid special reserve ($60,000), to which the party of the first part is entitled, 
being to me in hand paid by the United States, represented by the Secrteary of the 
Navy, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, The William Cramp and Sons 
Ship and Engine Building Company, represented by me, Charles H. Cramp, presi- 
dent of said corporation, does hereby for itself and its successors and assigns, and its 
legal representatives, remise, release, and forever discharge the United States of and 
from all and all manner of debts, dues, sums and sums of money, accounts, reckonings, 
claims, and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, for or by reason of, or on account 
of, the construction of said vessel under the contract aforesaid. 

"In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of The Wil- 
liam Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company this eighteenth day of May, 
A. D. 1896. 

"[seal.] "Chas. H. Cramp. President. 

"Attest: 

"John Dougherty, Secretary." 

to the giving of which release and receipt the claimant does not appear at the time to 
have objected or protested. 

VII. Before and during the period of delay, as aforesaid, the claimant's business 
was so large that in order to obtain more room for materials for the vessels under con- 
struction at the claimant's yard, of which the Indiana was one, it purchased additional 
ground at a cost of $121,756.03, and erected thereon temporary shops, in which to 
handle and rehandle material, at an additional cost of $3,000. It is not shown that 
the purchase of said real estate was necessary to the construction of the Indiana, or 
that any portion of the outlay therefor was attributable to the vessel during the period 
of delay. 

VIII. After the expiration of the contract period and during the two years that the 
vessel was delayed in completion, as hereinbefore found, the reasonable value for the 
use of the claimant's yard, machinery, and tools, and for superintendence in the con- 
struction of the vessel, including the general upkeep of the yard chargeable to the 
Indiana, was $3,000 per month, or $72,000 for the two years' delay. 

The proportion of said expenses chargeable to the Indiana from May 10, 1894, the 
date of the release set fort in Finding VI, being for one year six months and nine 
days, was $54,887.67. 

IX. For the proper care and protection of the vessel during the two years' delay, 
including expense of cleaning the bottom, furnishing material and painting, tem- 
porary awnings and tents over caps left for the introduction of turrets, additional 
scaling to remove rust before painting, electric lighting, keeping up steam to prevent 
freezing of valves, wetting down decks, going over machinery, and keeping vessel 
free from snow, dust, ice and debris, the reasonable cost was $48,000. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 889 

The proportion of said expenses for the period from May 10, 1894, being for one 
year six months and nine days, was $36,591.78. 

X. The customary rate of wharfage of merchant vessels at the port of Philadelphia 
during the time the Indiana was being constructed was 1 cent per net registered ton, 
and upon that basis, if allowed, the wharfage on the Indiana, with a net tonnage which 
we find was 3,203.58, during said two years' delay was $32 a day, or $23,360. 

The proportion of expense during the period from May 10, 1894, being for one year 
six months and nine days, was $17,808, inclusive of the dredging of the basin or bed 
in which to accommodate the vessel. 

The claimant also incurred an expense of $5,783 for tug service in removal of the 
vessel from time to time. Such expense is not shown to have been necessary to the 
construction of the vessel during the period of delay. It appears to have been for the 
benefit and convenience of the claimant. 

XL During the two years' delay the claimant was required to and did keep the 
vessel insured for the benefit and protection of the United States, and the reasonable 
cost thereof aggregated during said period the sum of $34,463.55. • 

The proportionate expense for the period from May 10, 1894, being one year six 
months and nine days, was $26,272.55. 

XII. March 23, 1894, the claimant notified the Secretary of the Navy that the ves- 
sel, other than the fitting of the armor, had reached a stage of completion ready for an 
official trial and proposed to offer said vessel therefor between May 1 and 10 following. 

Seven other vessels built by the claimant for the United States had been permitted 
to go on trial trips before their completion. The Indiana was the first battle ship con- 
structed, and before the armor was completed thereon the claimant proposed an offi- 
cial trial. 

March 9, 1894, the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the claimant the following 
letter: 

Washington, March 9, 1894. 

Gentlemen: In view of the fact that the trial of the Indiana will take place at an 
early date, and as you are probably now making preparation therefor, your attention 
is invited to the tenth clause of the contract for the construction of that vessel, which 
provides that the expenses of a successful trial of the vessel shall be borne by the 
Government. 

With a view to an expeditious settlement of the bill for the trial expenses of the 
vessel after the trial shall have taken place, the Department has to-day directed Chief 
Engineer J. W. Thomson and Naval Constructor J. F. Hanscom, United States Navy, 
to inform themselves as to what expenses you incur in preparing the vessel for trial t 
on the trial, and in furnishing the supplies of all kinds to be used, in order that they 
may be able to report to the Department after such examination, if any, as they may 
be required to make of your bill as to whether the items included therein are prop- 
erly chargeable to the Government, and as to whether the prices charged therefor are 
proper and reasonable. 

The Department requests that you will confer with the above-named officers in 
regard to the expenses necessary to be incurred in the trial of the Indiana, and afford 
them such information as will enable them to fully comply with the Department's 
instructions as above stated. 

Very respectfully, H. A. Herbert, 

Secretary of the Navy. 

The William Cramp & Sons 

Ship and Engine Building Company, 

Philadelphia, Pa. 

The expense so incurred was verified by such officers and no objection was found 
to the amount thereof. But in the meantime the Secretary of the Navy was in doubt 
as to whether the vessel was ready for such official trial, and to ascertain that fact 
did, on April 12, 1894, appoint a board, consisting of three naval officers, to inquire 
into the matter. 

The board made such inquiry, and on April 18, 1894, reported to the Secretary that 
the hull of the vessel was about eighty-four one-hundredths completed, and that but 
one-half of the armor had been fitted in place. The board unanimously reported that 
the vessel was not then and would not be by May 1, 1894, ready for the official trial 
trip in accordance with the tenth article of the contract, and that such trial should 
not, in the interest of the Government, take place until the vessel was fully completed 
and ready for delivery. ' 

Upon that report the Secretary acted, refusing to give his approval to the proposed 
trial, and the same was not made. 



890 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 



If the claimant is entitled to recover the expense so incurred in the preparation for 
the preliminary trial of the vessel, the amount as verified by the officers of the Navy 
and which we find reasonable was $17,514.94. 

XIII. The items of cost and expense set forth in the several findings herein, both 
upon the basis of two years' delay and of one year six months and nine days' delay, 
are as follows: 



Find- 
ing. 



Item. 



Two years. 



One year, 6 

months, 
and 9 days. 



VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 



Superintendence and upkeep of yard 

"Protection of vessel, cleaning, painting, etc 

Wharfage of vessel 

Insurance on vessel 



$72, 000. 00 
48, 000. 00 
23,360.00 
34, 463. 55 



177,823.55 



5554,887.67 
36, 591. 78 
17, 808. 00 
26,272.55 



135, 560. 00 



CONCLUSION OP LAW. 

Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court decides as a conclusion of law that the 
claimant is entitled to recover against the United States the loss and damage sustained 
by it during the delay of one year, six months, and nine days, as set forth in finding 
XIII, the sum of one hundred and thirty-five thousand five hundred and sixty dollars 
($135,560). 

Exhibit B. 

letter of mr. justice brewer, supreme court. 

Supreme Court of the United States, 

Washington, D. C, December 17, 1907. 
My Dear Mr. Fay: Do not think I have neglected the matter to which you called 
my attention a few nights since. I spoke first to some of the brethren individually and 
finally I brought the matter up before the court in conference. The brethren without 
dissent advised me not to write the letter you suggest. There is nothing in the opinion 
which ignores the equity upon which you rely and of course nothing- to intimate that Con- 
gress can not if it sees fit grant all the relief desired. 

The brethren thought it would be unwise to intimate that Congress might or ought 
to act in the matter, and prefer to leave it for the action of that body, based upon such 
showing of the facts as can be made. It is not to be supposed, of course, that Con- 
gress will not be willing to do what is right in the premises. 

I return herewith the enclosures in your letter, thinking that you may have use for 
them in your further efforts. 
Very truly, yours, 

David J. Brewer. 
Hon. John C. Fay, 

Glover Building, 1419 F Street. 



Exhibit C. 



affidavit of honorable benjamin f. tracy, ex-secretary of the navy. 

State of New York, 

. County of New York, Borough of Manhattan, ss: 

Benjamin F. Tracy, being duly sworn, says: 

That he was Secretary for the Department of the Navy of the United States during 
the Administration of the late President Harrison. 

That as such Secretary, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 
30, 1890, for the building of battleships for the Navy, he, on or about the 19th day of 
November, 1890, entered into three contracts for the building of battleships designated 
as Nos. 1, 2, and 3; said battleships were to be built according to the same plans and 
specifications and were identical in all respects. Contracts for battleships Nos. 1 and 
2, subsequently named the Indiana and the Massachusetts, were made with the William 
Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, of Philadelphia, Pa. A contract 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 891 

in identical form for battleship No. 3, afterwards named the Oregon, was made with 
the Union Iron Wades, of San Francisco, Cal. By provisions in these three contracts 
the United States was to furnish all the heavy armor and each vessel was to be com- 
pleted within three years from the date of contract, under onerous penalties against 
contractor for delay, the United States agreeing to furnish the armor arid their acces- 
sories within the "time and in order to carry on the work properly." Each contract 
provided for the accepting of the vessel by the United States without armor in case 
its building was delayed by the default of the United States in furnishing armor, and 
each contract provided in similar terms for a final receipt of all claims of auy kind or 
description under or by virtue of the contract. 

Before and at the time of making these contracts "all steel" armor had been the 
standard in the Navy, it being considered the best then known, but in 1S89 his atten- 
tion had been directed to nickel steel, and the so-called Harvey process, and early in 
1890 he had begun an investigation as to their respective merits which had proceeded 
so far as to have resulted in a comparative test between the compound steel, the all 
steel, and the nickel steel at Annapolis, September 18-22, 1890, as set forth in his 
annual report of 1890, and in consequence Congress had appropriated $1 ,000,000 for 
the purchase of nickel metal; but deponent was unwilling to determine definitely 
upon the character of armor to be applied to the new battle ships, without further tests, 
experiments and investigation both as to nickel steel and the Harvey process, and to 
leave the Department free to continue these investigations when he came to make the 
contracts of November 19, 1890, for the Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon, the proviso 
of Article III, binding the Government to accept the vessels without armor, if the 
United States was unable to supply it in the time and in the order to carry on the work 
properly, was inserted so as not to impose upon the builders the necessary expense of 
the care of the vessels, during the time required for the Government experiments cal- 
culated to obtain the veiy best armor. 

After these contracts were let he proceeded with further tests of both nickel steel 
and Harveyized nickel steel and the various other kinds of armor, which continued 
up to July 30, 1892, as set forth in detail in his annual reports of 1890, 1891, and 1892, 
before he reached the conclusion to adopt the Harveyized nickel steel armor, and, 
accordingly, in February, 1893, made contracts for the production of this character 
of armor. During all this time the coordinate work on these vessels had been pro- 
gressing satisfactorily to the Department, and it became evident that this decision 
would result in a very considerable delay in their completion, and that the necessary 
cost of their care, maintenance, preservation, insurance, and extra dockage and 
wharfage during this period of delay would amount to a large sum, and the United 
States having no proper facilities at its navy-yard to take over these vessels in their 
unfinished condition and care for and complete them, all of which being brought to 
his attention by the builders of the Oregon, he entered into the supplemental contract 
attached hereto with that company, by which these several expenses were to be cur- 
rently ascertained and paid by the United States, and he is informed and believes 
they were so paid. That a similar supplementary contract would have been made 
by him with the Cramp Company for the Indiana and Massachusetts if it had been 
brought to his attention. 

That the sixth clause of Article NIX of the contract was an old form that had been in 
use in navy contracts for. many years, and, while it was very properly applicable when 
the builder furnished all the material and labor for the construction of a vessel, was not, 
standing alone, very appropriate for a contract where part of the material was to be fur- 
nished by the United States; but it was never intended by him to impose upon the 
builder the loss, expense, or damage that accrued to it by reason of the failure of the 
United States to perform its part of the contract; he can confidently state that at the 
time of making these contracts that, by providing for this final receipt and release, it 
was not the purpose, intent, or design of either party to the contract that it should 
extend to or cover damages which the contractor might sustain by reason of the fail- 
ure of the Government to perform the contract on its part, nor is he aware that the 
Department in any case has so construed a similar final release or receipt. 

Benjamin F. Tracy. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of October, A. D. 1907. 
[seal] Chas. A. Conlon, 

Notary Public, New York County, 



892 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Exhibit D. 

affidavit of admiral philip highborn, u. s. navy, retired, late chief of the 
bureau of construction and repair. 

District of Columbia, ss: 

Philip Hichborn, of the city of Washington, being duly sworn, says: 

That he is on the retired list of the United States Navy, having been retired while 
chief constructor, after a service in its construction corps of more than thirty years. 

That he was intimately connected with the building of the so-called "New Navy" 
from its inception to the time of his retirement from active service, as member of the 
Naval Advisory Board, assistant to Chief, and afterwards Chief of the Bureau of Con- 
struction and Repair. 

That during the preparation of the contracts for the Indiana, Massachusetts, and 
Oregon, he was, either personally or through his assistants, in constant communication 
with the Secretary and the Judge-Advocate-General as to their terms, but more par- 
ticularly as to technical parts of it, although the whole contract was referred to him for 
examination and report and was carefully examined and considered before it was finally 
signed. 

That he distinctly recalls the fact that Article III, providing for a trial trip without 
armor, was fully discussed, and its purpose to avoid entailing the costs and expenses 
arising from delays in the delivery of armor, upon the contractors, was well understood 
by all parties connected with the contract and some additional language was inserted 
at Mr. Cramp's suggestion, to render the understanding clearer; 

The sixth clause of Article XIX was an old form in use for many years in the Navy 
Department, and at no time during the preparation of the contract did he ever hear 
any of the officers of the Department who had any hand in the preparation of the con- 
tract suggest that it might be so construed as to require release of any damages that 
might accrue to the contractors from any breach of the contract on the part of the 
United States as a condition to final payment; he certainly did not so understand it, 
nor does he believe that if such a construction of that clause had been avowed by the 
Department, it would have been able to have secured a contract from any responsible 
shipbuilding concern in the country. 

That after the armor had been so long delayed and the contract time had expired, 
and the time within which the armor could be secured was indefinite and uncertain, 
the company, under the special direction of officers of the Navy, charged with that 
duty by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, proceeded to install temporary work 
and weight down the Indiana for a trial trip without armor, under the provisions of the 
third article of the contract, and expended some $17,000 in such work, took her on a 
contractors' trial trip and tendered her for official trial. 

That .deponent thought that such a trial in her unfinished condition would be of 
great service in developing the vessel and exhibiting any weak places or errors in 
design, and was strongly in favor of submitting her to trial irrespective of the provi- 
sions in the contract so to do, but the United States was not then equipped to take 
charge of the vessel and care for her during the subsequent delay which it was then 
well known was certain to continue for a very considerable length of time, and the 
Secretary, for reasons satisfactory to himself, through other agencies than the Bureau 
of Construction and Repair, declined to permit her to make a trial trip until finally 
completed. 

t Deponent further says that after the completion and acceptance of the vessel he was 
called upon to make up the final account, and in so doing he made no allowances for 
damages for delay, nor was the matter at all considered or embraced in the final account, 
for the reason that it had long been held in the Department that the Department had 
no authority or jurisdiction to entertain, audit, or consider such claims, nor was any 
appropriation available for their payment. That all claims of such character that had 
been or afterwards were during his term of office considered or audited by the Depart- 
ment had been under special legislation giving the Department jurisdiction in certain 
specified cases. 

That he personally, by direction of the Secretary, examined the claim of the In- 
diana, and made a report to the Senate committee in the Fifty-fourth Congress, and 
from his examination he is able to say that the allowance by the Court of Claims is, 
in his judgment, fair and reasonable, and leaving out the item that he was unwilling 
to pass on for lack of evidence, and which was allowed by the court, an analysis of 
the award of the court shows it to be less than the report made by him as Chief of the 
Bureau of Construction and Repair. 

Philip Hichborn. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 5th day of November, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] George J. Johnston, 

Notary Public, District of Columbia 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 893 

Exhibit E. 

AFFIDAVIT OF EX-NAVAL CONSTRUCTOR LEWIS NIXON. 

State of New York, Borough of Manhattan: 

Lewis Nixon, of Tompkinsville, Staten Island, State of New York, being duly 
sworn, says that he is by occupation a shipbuilder; that he graduated at the United 
States Naval Academy at Annapolis, and the Royal Academy at Greenwich, England, 
and served in the IT. S. Navy as an assistant naval constructor to about January 1, 
1891; that in 1890 he was ordered to the Bureau of Construction and Repair in Wash- 
ington, and was assigned to the duty of designing and preparing the plans and speci- 
fications of the coast defense battle ships provided for under the act of June 30, 1890, 
which designs were adopted, and the Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon were built 
thereunder; that in the formulation of the contracts for these vessels he was in con- 
stant and almost daily consultation with both Secretary Tracy and Judge-Advocate- 
General Remy; that he was deeply interested in the successful building of these 
battle ships, both from a professional as well as a patriotic standpoint, and took great 
care and aimed to insert such stringent provisions as were calculated to stimulate the 
builders to great energy in speedily constructing the vessels, but not so harsh and unjust 
that might deter a shipbuilder from undertaking a contract, and with this end in view, 
at his suggestion, the obligation of the United States to furnish the armor at the time 
and in the order to carry on the work properly and the provision that, in default of 
so doing, the vessel was to be accepted without armor, were inserted, and to free this 
clause from any ambiguity the words "and to continue with reasonable diligence" 
were afterwards added in manuscript in the printed contract at the suggestion of Mr. 
C. H. Cramp before he signed the formal contract. 

If this provision of the contract had been lived up to by the United States, no part 
of the claim or damage sued for in the Court of Claims ever would or could have arisen 
in behalf of the Cramp Company for the expense of the care, preservation, and main- 
tenance of the vessels which did accrue by reason of the delay in furnishing the armor 
would have been borne by the United States, as the contract intended to provide 
that it should be; that from his personal connection with the preparation of the con- 
tract and his intercourse and consultation with the Secretary and the Judge-Advocate- 
General he can confidently state that it never was the intention of the United States, 
as represented by its officers, as parties to the contract, that the provision for a final 
release, embodying in it as a condition precedent to the payment of the balance of the 
contract price, to require the release of or cover any claim for damage arising out of 
the breach of contract by the United States or exempt the United States from the 
cost and expense of the care, preservation, and maintenance of either of these vessels 
during the period of enforced delay occasioned by the inability of the United States 
to fulfill its part of its contract. 

That shortly after the making of the contract, the Cramp Company tendered to him 
the position of superintendent of their yard to supervise the building of these vessels, 
and, in his anxiety to see his designs successfully carried out, he resigned from the 
Navy, accepted the offer and built two of these Vessels, the Indiana and Massachusetts. 
That when the delays began to accrue he pushed the coordinate work so that the 
vessels should have a preliminary trial trip, and with the sanction of the Secretary of 
the Navy and under the supervision of two naval officers specially directed by the 
Secretary to supervise the temporary work necessary to take the vessel to sea, per- 
formed all such necessary work on the Indiana and weighed her down to her normal 
draft, at an expense of $17,000, took her to sea on her contractors' trial trip and tendered 
for official trial, ready in all respects to make such trip without her armor; but the 
Secretary of the Navy declined to allow her to make a trial trip unless fully completed, 
utterly ignoring the provisions of Article III. That during all the time of the delays 
he had frequent consultations with the officers of the Construction Bureau and the 
Secretary, and while it was frankly conceded by all of them that very serious expenses 
were being necessarily incurred by reason thereof, it never was intimated that, by any 
construction of the contract, such expense was to be borne by or claim for them was 
to be waived by the contractor. 

Lewis Nixon. 

Sworn and subscribed before me this 30th day of October, A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] Laura E. Smith, 

Notary Public, Kings County. 
(Certificate filed in New York County.) 



894 ALLOWANCE OF- CEETAIN CLAIMS. 

Exhibit F. 

STATEMENT OF HON. H. A. HERBERT, EX-SECRETARY OP THE NAVY. 

Washington, D. C, December 16, 1907. 

Dear Sir: At the request of Messrs. Hunton & Creecy I am condensing in a letter to 
you a statement made more at length in the correspondence between them and myself, 
which is to be filed with the committee. 

Under the contract for the construction of the Indiana and all other armored ships 
the Government was to furnish and deliver at times and places as needed all heavy 
armor. When I became Secretary of the Navy the Government was far behind with 
its deliveries of armor for the Indiana, partly by reason of delays on the part of the 
armor contractors and partly because of experiments with a new process of harvey- 
izing, which had been begun under Secretary Tracy and which were continued under 
me, thus causing further delay. 

The Cramp Company, builders of the Indiana, in August, 1893, earnestly protested 
against further delay, asked to be furnished with nickel steel armor, as previously 
decided upon. On August 25, 1893, I, as Secretary, replied: 

"The Department thinks it for the best interests of the service that this armor 
should be harveyized, even if it should occasion some delay in the completion of the 
vessel, as you state." 

I was deciding solely what was to the interests of the Government. The question of 
compensation to the contractors for losses that might result to them from enforced 
delays was not before me, nor had I as an executive officer any jurisdiction over that 
matter. But whenever I had occasion subsequently to consider this matter, my 
every act and deed showed that in my opinion the Government was responsible to the 
builders for all losses caused by its failure to comply with its contracts to deliver 
armor when required to do so under its contracts. 

When on May 10, 1894, I advanced to the Cramp Company a considerable sum of 
money already earned but not then payable, I exacted from the company a release 
of the United States ' ' from all and every claim for loss and damage hitherto sustained 
by reason of any failure" on their part, or "on account of any delay hitherto occa- 
sioned by" their action. 

The panic of 1893-94 was then on. The company was in urgent need of the money 
and I thought the release of their claim for damages on account of the Government's 
delay was a valuable consideration for the advance payment of this money. 

Again, on February 27, 1895, as Secretary, I stated in a letter to the Naval Com- 
mittee that I saw no objection to the passage of a bill, which had been referred to 
me, for the relief of the builders of the Texas, whose claim was exactly similar to that 
of the Cramp Company in the matter of the Indiana. 

Again, after this bill for the Texas was passed, Assistant Secretary McAdoo, Decem- 
ber 20, 1895, reported that, "in the opinion of the Department," the contractors were 
"justly and equitably entitled to $80,049.35." 

Again, December 8, 1896, responding to an inquiry from Congress as to whether 
the claims of the builders of the Indiana and other vessels for damages incurred by 
like cases should be decided by Congress of the Court of Claims, as Secretary, I stated 
that, "in my judgment, the interests of justice demand" that these cases should be 
referred to the Court of Claims, giving as my reason that the court could consider 
with more deliberation and care than the committees of Congress could. 

Again, Chief Constructor Hichborn, then under me, February 9, 1897, recom- 
mended the payment of items on account of the losses of the Indiana, of $97,214.85; 
and this without considering, as he said, another large amount which he thought the 
committee was more competent than he to investigate. 

Thus without a break every act of the Department touching this matter, when I 
presided over it, showed that in its opinion the builders had a just claim for the losses 
resulting to them from delays caused by the Government in furnishing armor according 
to its contracts. 

The Supreme Court, however, decided in the Indiana case that by the final release 
stipulated for in the building contract, and given when the last payments were made, 
all claims for damages by the builders were released, although the Court of Claims had 
held otherwise. 

That my view of this release was that taken by the Court of Claims and not that 
taken by the Supreme Court, is clear from the following consideration: 

In my letter transmitting the Cramp cases to Cpngress (see H. R. 816, 55th Congress, 
2d session) I called special attention to the release of May 10, 1894, from all damages 
theretofore incurred in the case of the Indiana, and to a similar release in the case of 
the Massachusetts. This I did because I thought it my duty to see that Congress, 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 895 

before taking any action, should have before it any written release that might have 
been given. 

Per contra. — On December 8, 1896, when I expressed the opinion that the "interests 
of justice demanded " that these Cramp cases and others should be sent to the Court of 
Claims, the final release which the Supreme Court afterwards construed in the case of 
the Indiana, had already been given, to wit, May 18, 1896. 

If, in my opinion at that time, the Cramp Company had released all claim for dam- 
ages in writing by its receipt for the final payment, it would have been clearly my duty 
to call the attention of Congress to that fact. But this was not done, for the reason 
that it was not my opinion that the company had by its receipt for the last regular 
payment released the Government from the claim for darhages which I was recom- 
mending should be sent to the Court of Claims. 

Very respectfully, H. A. Herbert. 

Hon. C. W. Fulton, 

Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate. 



Exhibit G. 

affidavit of mr. charles h. cramp, ex-president, the wm. cramp & sons ship and 

engine building company. 
State of Pennsylvania: 

Charles H. Cramp, being duly affirmed, says: That he was the president of the 
William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company during the period that 
company was building the battle ships and cruisers for the new Navy of the United 
States, including the battle ships Indiana, Massachusetts, and Iowa, and the cruisers 
New York, Brooklyn, and Columbia, all of which vessels were seriously delayed during 
their construction by reason of the failure of the United States to fulfill the obligations 
on its part assumed under the terms of the contract. 

That at the time, in November, 1890, when the terms of the contract for the build- 
ing of battle ship No. 1, afterwards called the Indiana, were under consideration, he 
had frequent consultations with the chief constructor and his chief assistant, and 
Secretary Tracy, and while the company agreed to submit to penalties for delay 
caused by it in the construction of the vessel, the United States agreed to take the 
vessel off the hands of the contractor in an unfinished condition in case the delays were 
caused by the United States. If these latter terms had been carried out there would 
have been no cost to the company for the care and preservation, insurance, wharfage, 
and similar items during the enforced delay brought about by the delay in furnishing 
the armor on the part of the United States, and there was never any intimation on the 
part of any officer of the Government in all the negotiations, or during the contract 
period, that the contract price included, or was intended to include, the expense of the 
maintenance, care, preservation, or other expenses, made necessary by the delay after 
the contract term expired. The price fixed in the contract included nothing but the 
work provided for under the plans and specifications. There was never any under- 
standing, agreement, or pretense on the part of either party to the contract that the 
final receipt covered, or intended to cover, anything except the construction of the 
vessel under the contract, and it was given and accepted with the full knowledge and 
understanding both of the Secretary of the Navy and the company that it was not 
intended to be any bar to the recovery by the company of the expenses of care, wharf- 
age, insurance, etc., of the vessel during the time of the delay. 

At the moment, May, 1896, when the receipt was signed, there was pending in 
Congress a petition of the company for the passage of a law conferring on the Secre- 
tary of the Navy authority to audit and pay this identical claim. This was well 
known to _the Secretary, and he had before that time recommended similar legis- 
tion in a similar case. 

At the time of signing the receipt the Secretary conceded that the Government's 
delay had caused the company great loss, and that they had a valid claim for reim- 
bursement, but held that he was without jurisdiction to pass upon it and without 
funds to liquidate it. 

Enlightened by these surrounding facts and circumstances, it is not possible to con- 
strue the words of the receipt "for, or by reason of, or on account of the construction 
of the vessel under the contract" to embrace the claim for the care and preservation 
of the vessel, which was no part of the construction of the vessel, and which did not 
arise by virtue of any provision in the contract or specifications. Neither party 
intended that it should, and the contemporaneous acts of both parties emphasized it. 



896 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 

The Secretary of the Navy had treated a partial release of this claim as a valid and 
valuable consideration for the payment of what he claimed to be an advance of money 
not yet due under the contract, and the company had presented it and were pressing 
it before Congress with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Secretary. 

In May, 1894, the Secretary refused an official trial trip and declined to accept the 
vessel in an unfinished condition, and refused to make further payments till a trial 
trip was had. The company had, under the eye of specially detailed officers, ex- 
pended seventeen thousand dollars for temporary work so the vessel could be taken 
to sea, and had made a contractor's trial trip. The company was then in dire need of 
money. It was carrying more than a million and a quarter of dollars in loans at 
abnormal rates of interest, with a weekly pay roll of upwards of ten thousand dollars 
a day, and upwards of five thousand employees, which represented fully twenty thou- 
sand persons dependent upon the continuation of work in the company's yard. 

It was the time of financial panic and to have thrown these men out of employment 
would have been a calamity to the city and State. To avert so disastrous a calamity, 
against his earnest remonstrance, he was coerced into signing the special release of 
May 10, 1894, in order to receive, not an advance payment, for the money was then 
long overdue, but to save the company from threatened bankruptcy and the city and 
State from a disastrous calamity. Personal violence to him or imprisonment itself 
would not have been more potent in obtaining the release than were the circumstances 
that surrounded him at the time. 

Chas. H. Cramp. 

Affirmed and subscribed to before me at Devon, Penna., this 10th day of August, 
A. D. 1907. 

[seal.] Isaac Arrott, Notary Public. 

(My commission expires February 29, 1909.) 

JAMES H. DENNIS. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred, the bill (S. 1456) to carry out the 
findings of the Court of Claims in the case of James H. Dennis, having carefully con- 
sidered the same, report the bill back to the Senate with the recommendation that 
the bill be amended by striking out the words "twenty-five thousand six hundred 
and thirty-eight dollars" and inserting in lieu thereof "twenty-six thousand five 
hundred and thirty-eight dollars," it being apparent that the amount stated in the 
bill is incorrect and arises from an error in addition. A bill to carry out the findings 
of the Court of Claims in this case has heretofore been reported with favorable recom- 
mendations as follows: 

Fifty-first Congress, first session, Report No. 830, made by Senator Allen; Fifty- 
second Congress, first session, Report No. 512, by Senator Allen; and to the House of 
Representatives as follows: Fifty-second Congress, first ression, Report No. 1601, 
by Mr. Cox, of Tennessee; Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, Report No. 639, by 
Mr. Cox, of Tennessee, and in the Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, Report No. 313, 
by Mr. Clardy. 

An item for the payment of the findings in the case of James H. Dennis was included 
in bill H. R. 13382, Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, and passed the Senate. In 
the Fifty-second Congress, first session, Senator Allen made a complete report upon 
the bill for the payment of James H. Dennis, and your committee insert his report 
herein and adopt it as fully setting forth the facts in the case, except as to the state- 
ments of the final amount due, which, as above set out, should be $26,538, instead of 
$25,638. 

The report of Senator Allen is as follows: 

"The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 597) to carry out the 
findings of the Court of Claims in the case of James H. Dennis, make the following 
report : 

"The bill calls for an appropriation of $29,638, being the sum found by the Court 
of Claims due the claimant on account of certain contracts for the improvement of 
the Tennessee River. 

"September 21, 1888, by resolution of the Senate, bill S. 3571, entitled 'A bill for 
the relief of James H. Dennis,' then pending in the Senate, was referred to the Court 
of Claims in pursuance of the provisions of 'An act to provide for the bringing of 
suits against the Government of the United States,' approved March 3, 1887, to find 
and report to the Senate the facts bearing upon the merits of the claim, including 
the loyalty of the claimant and all other facts contemplated by the provisions of 
said acts: 

"The bill thus submitted to the Court of Claims called for an appropriation for the 
payment of said Dennis in the sum of $259,700 on account of work done upon the 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 897 

• 

Tennessee River, under contracts, written, oral, or implied, between the years 1868 
and 1872, in addition to any sums or sum that may have been paid to him. 

"Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate, upon petition duly presented, evidence 
was taken and a finding of facts was made by the Court of Claims, a certified copy 
of which was filed with the President of the Senate March 3, 1890. 

"From the findings it is made clearly to appear that the claimant was a loyal citi- 
zen of the United States; that between the months of October, 1868, and October, 
in the year 1870, the claimant entered into certain contracts in writing with the 
United States for the improvement of different places on the Tennessee River; that 
the original contract was altered from time to time by oral agreements between the 
officer representing the United States and claimant; that the contracts originally 
let to other parties by the Government were by mutual consent assigned to claimant 
for the purpose of performance; and that subsequent to the original contract a second 
written contract was entered into between the Government and claimant respecting 
improvements upon the river. 

"Pursuant to these several contracts plaintiff, under the supervision of the proper 
engineering officer of the Government, performed work until April, 1872, when, fail- 
ing to give a bond exacted of him by the officer in charge, the claimant was notified 
that the several contracts entered into were canceled and he notified to discontinue 
work. On account of the various improvements made by the claimant there was 
allowed and paid to him $105,224.57 certain per cents of the amounts being withheld. 
This per centum, amounting to $19,229.79, was not paid to the claimant until Jan- 
uary, 1874, and in the collecting of the same he was compelled to pay as found by 
the court, $4,000 in counsel fees; that claimant at the time of entering into these sev- 
eral contracts with the Government was worth from $25,000 to $30,000; that upon 
discontinuance of the work he was left in a state of insolvency. In most of the items 
presented in his petition the court fails to find favorably to the claimant, solving 
obscure or doubtful proofs against him. 

c 'At what is termed Suck Bar the court finds the whole amount of rock removed to 
have been 29,369 cubic yards; that the estimates of payment for this work, made by 
the officer in charge, were as follows: 

6, 100 cubic yards, at 75 cents $4, 575. 00 

9, 532 cubic yards, at $1.15 10, 961. 80 

9, 538. 85 cubic yards, at $3.75 35, 770. 68 

25, 170. 85 51, 307. 48 

"It finds the difference between the work done and that paid for 4,199 cubic yards, 
and that this additional work was of the same character and equally difficult and 
expensive as that for which the allowance of $3.75 per cubic yard was made, and 
therefore finds a reasonable value for the same $15,746. 

"The court also finds that on the work done at what is called Boiling Pot 13,500 
cubic yards were removed, and pursuant to the contracts paid for at the rate of $1.50 
per cubic yard, and that upon the order of the officer in charge claimant made a 
further excavation and removal of 2,100 cubic yards of the same character of work, 
and worth at the contract price $3,600, for which payment had not been made; that 
at what is known as Buck Island claimant constructed a riprap dam, which he alleged 
contained 2,666 cubic yards of rock, for which payment was to have been made at 
the rate of $2.25 per cubic yard. He was allowed, by reason of an erroneous meas- 
urement, for but 2,000 yards at this rate. The court finds that by a proper method 
of measurement the dam contained 2,400 cubic yards of rock, for which according 
to the contract, he should have received payment at the rate of $2.25 per cubic yard, 
and that there is still due him thereon $900. 

"It is also shown in the findings that on the 31st of October, 1868, the claimant 
made a contract with the Government to do certain work in the improvement of the 
Tennessee River at a point known as Seven-Mile Island and Buck Island, and that 
after making extensive preparations for carrying on the contract, he received notice 
from the engineer officer in charge that the work at this point was abandoned and 
that the work would be transferred to Colbert Shoals. 

" The amount of work done at Colbert Shoals was 3,362 cubic yards, at $2.25 per 
yard. The court finds the work at Colbert Shoals more difficult than that at Buck 
Island and Seven-Mile Island. The whole amount of work under the contract at 
Buck and Seven-Mile islands, including a wall, was 11,357 cubic yards. Amount 
done at Buck Island and Colbert Shoals, 5,762 cubic yards. 

"Estimating the cost of preparation made at Seven-Mile Island for the prosecution 
of the work which became a useless expenditure in consequence of the abandonment 
at that point and the difference in expense of the works done at the different points, 
the court renders a finding of $2,408 in favor of the claimant in excess of all payments 
made. 

S Rep. 382, 60-1 57 



898 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

"It is alleged in addition by claimant that at Colbert Island be built two riprap 
dams containing 15,000 cubic yards, worth $4 per cubic yard, and did other work of 
a value of $175; that he biiilt still another dam containing 1,000 cubic yards of rip- 
rap and 2,300 of rubble dam, worth, respectively, $4 and $6 per cubic yard; that the 
claimant was at said place allowed in the aggregate 11,439 cubic yards of riprap, for 
which payment of $16,382.53. including the retained percentage before mentioned, 
was made him. Of this amount, 8,911.76 yards were paid for at the price of $1.20 per 
yard and the remainder at the price of $2.25 per yard. If the measurement had been 
made according to the rule of one and eighty-hundredths instead of one and fifty- 
hundredths for the difference between solid and loose stone, as the court finds should 
have been done, it would have made the yards at $1.20, 10,693 inst, .id of 8,911.76, and 
the yards at $2.25, 3,033 instead of 2,527.24, making a balance of 1,782 yards at $1.20 
per yard and 505 yards at $2.25 per yard, amounting in the aggregate to an increase 
of $2,706, for which payment should be made the claimant. 

"At the point known as Bee Tree Shoals it is alleged the claimant built 3,744 yards 
of riprap, which was worth $5 per cubic yard, aggregating the sum of $18,720. 

"At this point, by the officer in charge, there was estimated and allowed 1,911 J yards 
of riprap, 400 yards at $1.20 per yard and 1,511$ yards at $2.25 per yard, aggregating 
$3,880.87. The court finds the same error occurred in estimating this work as the 
foregoing, and that estimating the work according to the standard of one hundred and 
eighty instead of one hundred and fifty the result is 480 yards at $1.20 per yard and 
2,890 yards at $2.25 per yard. 

"The court finds that the claimant has paid the sum of $4,000 as expenses in attor- 
ney's fees in collecting from the Government the retained percentage amounting to 
$19,229.79, the amount admitted by the officer in charge of the work to have been 
found due him, which was not paid until January, 1874. 

"Your committee do not, however, feel warranted in recommending the repayment 
of such expenses and counsel fees. 

"Your committee therefore recommend that the bill be amended so as to allow the 
claimant the sum of $25,638." 

The claim made by Mr. Dennis before the Court of Claims involved sums to the 
amount of $259,700, and the court, while allowing only a small portion of the total sum 
claimed, felt that it was due Dr. Dennis that all the findings made by the court, as 
well those in favor of Dennis as those against him, should be embodied in, their report 
of findings and submitted to the Senate, and the result was an unusually voluminous 
report, which, in a measure, obscures the different items found in favor of Dennis. 

In order that the findings in favor of the claimant, Dennis, may be succinctly and 
clearly stated the letter of Mr. Chief Justice Nott, who was one of the justices sitting 
when the case was tried, addressed to James Lowndes, esq., one of the attorneys in 
the case, is inserted herein, and is as follows: 

"February 10, 1904. 

" Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiries relative to certain obscurities in the report of 
the Court of Claims in the case of James H. Dennis, filed March 3, 1890, I am con- 
strained to say that only two of the judges who were on the bench at the time the case 
was tried are now living, and that this communication must be considered as my indi- 
vidual act and not that of the court. 

' 'As the court made an immense reduction in the claims brought before it in this 
suit, it was deemed more just to the claimant to set forth in the report to Congress 
both the amounts allowed and disallowed, so that if Congress saw fit they would have 
the facts before them which would enable them to make a larger allowance to the 
claimant than the court has done. Unfortunately, the course pursued made the 
findings almost hopelessly voluminous, and the details of what was claimed by the 
claimant and allowed by the court have caused the obscurities. 

"Without referring to the disallowed items, I will briefly summarize those which 
were allowed: 

"Finding II: 

Of work done at a point on the Tennessee River known as Suck Bar the . 
claimant was paid for 25,170.85 cubic yards of excavation, but was not 
paid for 4,199 cubic yards, which the court finds to be reasonably 
worth $3.75 per cubic yard, amounting to the sum of $15, 746 

"Finding VIII: 

At a point on the Tennessee River known as Boiling Pot the claimant 
excavated 13,500 cubic yards of rock, for which he was paid. In the 
fall of 1871 he further excavated 2,400 cubic yards at said point, for 
which he was not paid, and which the court finds to be reasonably 
worth $1.50 per cubic yard, amounting to the sum of 3, 600 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 899 

"Finding IX: 

At a point on the Tennessee River known as Buck Island the claimant 
was paid for 2,000 cubic yards of riprap, but was not paid for 400 
cubic yards, which the court finds to be reasonably worth $2.25 per 
cubic yard, amounting to $900 

"Finding IX: 

In consequence of an erroneous system of computation of the quantities 
and for work paid for at a point on the Tennessee River known as 
Colbert Shoals, but at $1.05 per cubic yard less than the contract price, 
the court finds the amount due to the claimant to be 2, 408 

' ' Finding X : 

For riprap masonry at a point on the Tennessee River known as Colbert 
Island for which the claimant was not paid in consequence of an erro- 
neous system of computation of the quantities and for work paid for 
at the same place, but at less than the contract price, the court finds 
due to the claimant the sum of 2, 706 

"Finding XII: 

In consequence of an erroneous system of computation of the quantities, 
the court finds that there is due the claimant for riprap masonry done 
at a point on the Tennessee River known as Bee Tree Shoals the sum of . 1, 178 



Total 26, 538 

"Respectfully, 

"C. C. Nott. 
"James Lowndes, Esq., Washington, D. C." 

This letter sets forth the six different items allowed by the court in favor of Dennis, 
the claimant, and the total of these foot up $26,538. 

Your committee therefore recommend that the bill be amended so as to allow the 
claimant the sum of $26,538, and that as so amended the bill do pass. 

PROTESTANT ORPHAN ASYLUM AT NATCHEZ, MISS. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3342) for the relief of 
the Protestant Orphan Asylum at Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, respectfully 
report: 

The evidence shows that the Protestant Orphan Asylum at Natchez was established 
in 1816 by ladies residing in Natchez and by members of different Protestant churches 
for the purpose of giving a home to destitute orphan children. The asylum has been 
in continuous operation since 1816. The funds required for the erection of the neces- 
sary buildings and for the maintenance of the asylum and support of the orphans were 
obtained entirely from private sources, no contributions being made either by the city, 
county, or State. As donations increased the managers extended the charity to or- 
phans in every part of the State, and its benefits were open to all worthy orphans, irre- 
spective of religious faith or denomination. 

The board of managers was incorporated in 1824. At different times legacies were 
left to the asylum, which were used in the purchase of a large building as a home for 
the orphans, the annual cost of maintaining the asylum being $3,600. 

In March, 1864, after the occupation of Natchez by the United States troops, the line 
of fortifications, known as "Fort McPherson," inclosed the orphan asylum, containing 
at that time about forty children. The premises, by order of General Sherman, were 
taken possession of by the soldiers and the children crowded into a remote part of the 
building. The board of managers soon found that it was impossible to remain in the 
asylum building, and the children were removed to another building which was used 
as a hospital for refugees. During a stay of six weeks two of the orphans died from 
disease contracted in the building. 

The Army continued to occupy the building until the 5th day of June, 1865. Dur- 
ing said occupation of about fifteen months the Army destroyed a very large and fine 
stable and the gardener's house, the lowest estimate of value being $1,500, some of the 
witnesses testifying to a larger sum. 

It is also established by the evidence that the value of the furniture, bedding, and 
other movable property lost to the asylum by reason of its occupation by the Federal 
forces was from $1,500 to $2,000. When the board of lady managers came into posses- 
sion of the building after it was vacated by the military authorities they had to re- 
furnish everything and put in a great many glass that had been broken. A consider- 
able sum had to be expended before the building was habitable. 



900 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

The builder who attended to all the repairs of the building and did all that was 
necessary for its reoccupancy was paid the sum of nearly $1,000, the asylum managers 
furnishing all the lumber required for the repairs. On March 5, 1864, the command- 
ing officer at Natchez ordered a board of survey to examine all houses within the line 
of intrenchments and to assess the value of each in gold coin. The board made a report 
March 31, 1864, and estimated the value of the orphan asylum buildings at $9,000 in 
gold coin. A copy of the report is on file. The live-oak timber was cut down and used, 
and the fences also used for military purposes. 

Your committee are of the opinion, from the evidence, that the rent of the asylum 
building for the period it was occupied by the Army and the losses sustained by said 
occupation amount to at least $5,375. The items are as follows: 

Rent of asylum buildings $1, 875 

Value of buildings torn down, and the materials used for other purposes 1, 500 

Value of furniture, bedding, and other movable property lost to the asylum by 

Army occupation 1, 500 

The live oak timber cut down and used, and fences used by the Army 500 

Total 5, 375 

The ladies of Natchez, who established the asylum, and their successors, have thus 
kept alive for nearly a century this noblest of charities. They have rescued from pov- 
erty and want, from idleness and crime, hundreds of orphan children, and made them 
useful members of society. In peace and in war, in times of prosperity and adversity, 
this noble chairty has been sustained with religious zeal and with loving sympathy by 
the ladies who contributed their time and means to the support and education of or- 
phan children, who otherwise might have been left outcasts and wanderers upon the 
cold charity of the world. No claim of greater merit could appeal to Congress for 
relief. 

GEORGE W. YOUNG. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 534) to reimburse George 
W. Young, postmaster at Wanship, Utah, for loss of postage stamps, having had the 
same under consideration, report it back to the Senate with the recommendation that 
it do pass without amendment. 

The facts of the case are set forth in the following affidavit and correspondence, 
which are adopted as part of this report: 

State of Utah, County of Summit, ss: 

I, Geo. W. Young, being first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am now a resi- 
dent of Coalville, Summit County, State of Utah, and in the year 1897, I held the 
position of postmaster in the town of Wanship, Summit County, Utah, and on the 
18th day of May of said year the post-office was broken into and robbed of $163.87 in 
postage stamps by persons unknown to me, and under the ruling of the Postmaster- 
General I was compelled to make good the loss and have never been reimbursed for 
same; and deponent further says that the stamps were kept in as secure a place as I 
had, which was in a fireproof safe that was in my office in the back part of my store 
that I kept all my valuable papers in, and at the time of the robbery something got 
wrong with the dial on the safe so that it would not lock only on what is called the 
day lock, and it was in this condition at that time, and still I considered it safer than 
to have had the stamps locked in my desk, and if they had been they would have 
been taken just the same, as all the drawers was pried open by the thief at time; 
and I further say that the building was entered by boring holes through a 2-inch door 
in the basement and sliding a bar out of the bracket that held it in place on the inside 
of the building, and then came up the stairs and broke into the office where the stamps 
were kept. 

Witness my hand and seal this 12th day of December, A. D. 1906. 

Geo. W. Young. 

In presence of — 
C. R. Jones. 

State of Utah, County of Summit, ss: 

On this 12th day of December, A. D. 1906, personally appeared before me, Geo. 
W. Young, the signer of the above instrument, who duly acknowledged to me that 
he executed the same. 

[seal.] C. R. Jones, Notary Public. 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 901 

Post-Office Department, 
Office of the Postmaster-General, 

Washington, D. C, January 16, 1907. 
Sir: In reply to your communication of the 14th instant, requesting information 
concerning a loss of postage stamps sustained by George W. Young, postmaster at 
Wanship, Utah, I have the honor to inform you that Mr. Young filed in this Department 
a claim for a credit of $163.87 on account of postage stamps alleged to have been stolen 
from his office by burglars May 17, 1897, and that the claim was disallowed for the 
reason that, in contravention of section 441, Postal Laws and Regulations of 1893, 
the stamps had been left by the postmaster in a safe which had been previously 
blown open by burglars and not repaired, and which, therefore, afforded no protection 
whatever to its contents. 

Very respectfully, Geo. B. Cortelyou, 

Postmaster-General. 
Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senate. 



Coalville, Utah, January 22, 1907. 

Dear Brother: In reply to yours of the 16th, will say that it is true that the safe 
door had been opened by burglars sometime before, but I had it repaired by Silver 
Brothers, Salt Lake City, and it was apparently as sound as it ever was, only, as I 
stated in my affidavit, that the lock would not work as smooth as it did before, and, 
as I said, it would only lock on the day lock, It would have made no difference if 
the stamps had been in desk drawers; they would have been stolen, as they had 
been all opened before they tackled the safe, but I still realize that if they had been 
locked in the desk drawer it would have complied with the postal laws and relieved 
me from being responsible; but I still claim the safe was the safest place I had to 
keep them in. 

Your brother, Geo. W. Young. 

Reed Smoot, United States Senate. 

A. A. NOON. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 533) for the relief of 
A. A. Noon, hereby report the same back to the Senate and recommend that it do 
pass without amendment. 

The facts in the case are fully set forth in H. R. Report No. 6420, Fifty-ninth Con- 
gress, second session, as follows: 

In this case there had been duly located the Helen and other mining claims in the 
Castle Peak mining district, Utah. The locators thereof made location in good faith, 
upon the understanding that they were on the public domain of the United States 
and subject to entry. This understanding rested upon the fact that in 1884 and 1885 
Messrs. Oakes and Bennett, under a contract with the General Land Office, made 
the original survey of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation, the notes of which survey 
show the mining claims mentioned to be west of the west line and outside of the 
Uncompahgre Ute Reservation. 

In 1898 a dispute arose as to the boundary line of the said reservation, and on 
March 26, 1898, the Secretary of the Interior instructed the surveyor-general of Utah 
to " contract with a competent surveyor to reestablish the western boundary of the 
Uncompahgre Reservation, Utah, as defined by the approved survey of said boundary, 
made by Oakes and Bennett. 

Under this instruction a resurvey was made by W. B. Dougall. Oakes and Ben- 
nett had traced the south boundary line of the Uintah Indian Reservation to a point 
48 chains west of the sixteenth milestone, counting from the initial corner established 
on the Green River; this point on the seventeenth mile was indicated as the west 
boundary of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation, which was east of the ground in • 
dispute. 

On the resurvey Mr. Dougall, starting at the same initial corner on the Green River, 
makes report that he could find no corners defining the said west boundary as indi- 
cated in the notes of the original survey; thereupon he retraced the line and located 
its intersection with the south boundary line of the Uintah Indian Reservation at 
nearly 54 chains west of the seventeenth milestone. This located the west boundary 
of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation as from a point on the eighteenth mile, instead 
of on the seventeenth, as established by the Oakes and Bennett survey. The resurvey 
of Mr. Dougall thus extended the west line of the Uncompahgre_Ute Reservation 



902 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

about 86 chains, or more than a mile, west of the line indicated in the original survey 
by Oakes and Bennett. The extension by this resurvey embraced the mining loca- 
tions named, and thereby included them within the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation. 

Previous to this resurvey several mining claims had been located within this mile 
strip, and in 1899, without knowing of the extension of boundary under the resurvey, 
but with knowledge of mining claims having been located on the mile strip, location 
was made of the Helen mining claim. In 1890 E. W. Koeber, a United States deputy 
mineral surveyor, surveying for patent for some of the previously located mining 
claims, reported finding monuments on the old line of the Oakes and Bennett survey. 
Under these conditions it is evident that the location of the Helen, Paris, and Troy 
mining claims was made in good faith, in the full belief that the ground was off the 
reservation and open to location. 

Operating under a lease, A. A. Noon, for whose relief the bill provides, took from 
the Helen mining claim, at a point within the mile strip taken in by the Dougall 
resurvey, and off the reservation as indicated by the Oakes and Bennett survey, a 
quantity of gilsonite. At the time of taking the lease and extracting the gilsonite 
Mr. Noon fully believed the ground was open to occupancy under the mining laws 
of the United States, it being adjacent to patented mining claims which under the 
old survey were, as was the point whence the gilsonite was extracted, oustide of the 
Uncompahgre Ute Reservation. Suit was brought by the United States for the value 
of said gilsonite and costs, and a judgment was obtained for $1,407.55, which has been 
paid. 

In view of the facts in this case the committee are of opinion that justice to Mr. 
Noon requires that he be given the relief provided in the bill. 

The letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the affidavit of the 
lessor to Mr. Noon, the mining location notices of the Helen, Paris, and Troy mining 
claims, with a map of the same, and a letter from Mr. Noon are appended hereto. 



Department of the Interior, General Land Office, 

Washington, D. C, March 7, 1906. 

Sir: In compliance with your verbal request for information relative to the loca- 
tion of certain gilsonite mining claims in the Castle Peak mining district, Utah, known 
as the Helen, Paris, and Troy mining claims, shown to have been located by Sidney 
Le Sieur, and recorded in the records of "Wasatch County, Utah, you are advised that 
the records of this office show that in 1898 the question came before this office as to 
the location of certain mining claims located by one Le Sieur, against whom an injunc- 
tion suit was pending for trespass upon what was alleged to be the Uncompahgre 
Ute Indian Reservation. In connection with this suit, it was deemed necessary 
by the United States district attorney for Utah to have an authoritative survey made 
of the west boundary of said reservation, and this was done under instructions from 
the Secretary of the Interior dated March 28, 1898, which instructions were as follows: 

"As this survey is required at the eraliest practicable moment, I have to request 
that the surveyor-general of Utah be instructed by telegraph to at once contract with 
a competent surveyor to reestablish the western boundary of the Uncompahgre Res- 
ervation, Utah, as defined by the approved survey of said boundary, made by Oakes 
and Bennett, and to reestablish the southern boundary line of the Uintah Reserva- 
tion, as defined by the approved survey of said boundary made by C. L. Du Bois, 
westward from Green River, as far as the seventeenth milepost, or to the point where 
the western boundary line of the Uncompahgre Reservation intersects the same." 

The survey was made by William B. Dougall, United States deputy surveyor, in 
April, 1898, and from such survey it appeared that the mining claims known as the 
Blackbird, Raven, Brunette, Helena, Salomon, Tillie, Dalton, and Alice were located 
upon the said Uncompahgre Ute Indian Reservation as shown upon the tracing 
attached to the letter from A. A. Noon, dated Provo City, Utah, March 2, 1906, ad- 
dressed to you, said tracing being that of a part of the plat of the survey executed 
by said Deputy Dougall. 

The original survey of the boundaries of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation was 
alleged to have been made under contract with this Office by Oakes and Bennett in 
1884 and 1885, and their notes show an intersection of the west boundary thereof 
with a south boundary of the Uintah Indian Reservation at a point 48 chains west 
of the sixteenth mile corner on the south boundary of said Uintah Reservation, count- 
ing from the initial corner established on the Green River. In his resurvey Deputy 
Dougall retraced the south boundary of the Uintah Reservation from said initial 
point on the Green River to a point as far west as the eighteenth mile corner and 
found the corners as reported in the original survey thereof, but in his attempt to 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 903 

retrace the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Reservation by running south from 
the point on the seventeenth mile, where Oakes and Bennett alleged to have estab- 
lished the closing corner on the said west boundary, Deputy Dougall could find no 
corners defining the said west boundary, and upon locating the starting point upon 
which said west boundary was initiated he found the same about a mile west and a 
quarter of a mile north of the point arrived at by basing his search upon the alleged 
position of the said closing corner and running south therefrom. 

Deputy Dougall states, with reference to his search for said west boundary, as 
follows: 

"The notes of the original survey furnished by the surveyor-general failed abso- 
lutely to check at any point with the actual topography found in the field. This 
led me to believe that this part, at least, of the west boundary of the Uneompahgre 
Ute Indian Reservation had never been run." 

Starting from the same initial point as that alleged by Oakes and Bennett, Deputy 
Dougall resurveyed the west boundary of the said Uneompahgre Reservation, and on 
arriving at the intersection with the south boundary of the Uintah Reservation his 
line fell nearly 54 chains west of the seventeenth mile corner, instead of 32 chains 
east thereof, as reported by Oakes and Bennett. Thus, starting from the same point 
and running a distance of a little more than 15 miles, the two surveys were about 
86 chains, or over a mile, apart. 

The survey by Dougall showed the mining claims to lie east of his line and there- 
fore within the Uneompahgre Reservation. The claims named as being the subject 
of your correspondent's letter, viz, Troy, Paris, and Helen, are shown to join the 
claims located by Dougall's survey, and they are therefore also within the limits of 
said reservation. 

This Office has no information of any other than the above referred to surveys loca- 
ting the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Indian Reservation. 

Your correspondent's letter is herewith returned. 

Very respectfully, W. A. Richards, 

Commissioner. 

Hon. Reed Smoot, 

United States Senate. 



Provo, Utah, March 29, 1906. 

Dear Sir: Answering your letter of the 16th instant, calling attention to relative 
positions of the present west boundary of the Uneompahgre Ute Indian Reservation, 
as surveyed by W. B. Dougall, to the Paris, Helen, and Troy mining claims, also to 
the location of said west boundary as surveyed by Oakes and Bennett, I herewith 
inclose an affidavit by Sidney Le Sieur to the position of the west line of the Uneom- 
pahgre Ute Indian Reservation as shown by the monuments on the ground at the 
time he made the locations, and a plat showing the relative positions of said line to 
the Helen and Remington mining claims. I also call your attention to the fact that 
in April, 1890, E. W. Koeber, a deputy mineral surveyor, under the direction of the 
surveyor-general for Utah, surveyed for patent the Salomon, Tillie, Dalton, Alice, 
and Remington claims, and in the return of such survey reports the position of the 
forty-third mile corner on the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Ute Indian Reser- 
vation in the same position as is claimed for it by the affidavit of Mr. Le Sieur. 

Mr. Koeber reports having retraced the west boundary of the reservation by run- 
ning south on a variation of 16° 20' from the forty- third milestone, and this line he 
reports as intersecting the southeast end line of the Remington claim at its center; 
but Mr. Koeber did not ascertain from the monuments on the ground the true posi- 
tion of the west boundary line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, and 
it is evident he did not use a true north-south line in retracing said boundary. The 
agricultural surveys. and the retracing of the west boundary by Mr. Dougall both show 
the variation here to be 16° 40 / , from which it is evident that Mr. Koeber erred in 
running his line on a variation of 16° 20 / . I inclose a plat showing the mining claims 
of the Koeber survey, with the Helen, Paris, and Troy locations and their relations 
to the west boundary line of the reservation. 

Referring to the letter from the General Land Office to you, under date of the 7th 
instant, which you inclose to me and which reports the survey by W. B. Dougall, of 
the west line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, I can not understand 
why Mr. Dougall was unable to find monuments on this line, as it is evident from 
the report of the United States Deputy Mineral Survey Koeber that there were monu- 
ments on the old line as established by Oakes and Bennett, and I contend that the 
monuments on the ground showed the west line of the reservation to be east of the 
Le Sieur location; that the location was made in good faith, in the full belief that the 



904 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

ground was open to location and off the reservation, and that the location was valid 
at that time, and should have the same treatment at the hands of the Government 
as was given the other claims lying to the west of the old Oakes and Bennett line, as 
shown by the monuments, and to the east of the new line as established by Dougall. 
I can furnish affidavits of numerous persons as to the approximate position of mile- 
stone 43 in relation to these claims, and will do so if advisable, but I trust that the 
records of the surveyor-general's office in Salt Lake City, as herein referred to, will 
be sufficient. 

Yours, truly, 

A. A. Noon. 
Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senate. 



United States of America, 

State of Utah, Utah County, ss: 
Sidney Le Sieur, being first duly sworn, says: 

1. I was the original locator of the following gilsonite mining claims, to wit, the 
Paris, the Troy, and the Helen, located in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch 
County, State of Utah. 

2. I am personally well acquainted with the surface ground of each and all of said 
mining claims, and also with that of the Remington and other adjacent claims. 

3. That he has a familiar personal knowledge of the west boundary line of the 
Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, as shown by the monuments upon the ground 
on the 31st day of December, A. D. 1899, when he located the mining claims above 
named, and the forty-third milestone was then in place; that while at that time the 
forty-second milestone was not in sight, he was so familiar with the ground as to be 
certain of the position in which it formerly stood, and that the position was after- 
wards verified by a survey made by Mr. H. A. Tiernan, a United States deputy min- 
eral surveyor. 

4. That the location monument of the Helen gilsonite mining claim was located 
to the west of the west boundary line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation 
and off the said reservation, as shown by the monuments on the ground at the time, 
and also by the survey of the said H. A. Tiernan, and about 3 rods southeasterly from 
the southeast end line of the mining claim known as the "Remington." 

5. That the Remington and Helen mining claims and the west boundary line of 
the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, as they all existed on the 31st day of 
December, 1899, are correctly represented upon the map hereto attached, marked 
"Exhibit A" and made a part of this affidavit. 

6. That the said locations of the Paris, the Troy, and the Helen gilsonite mining 
claims were made by me in good faith on the then unappropiated public lands of 
the United States and outside of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation. 

7. That to my personal knowledge all the gilsonite shipped by A. A. Noon, as 
lessee of said claims, was taken from the Helen mining claim, as shown, between the 
southeasterly end line of the Remington mining claim and the westerly boundary 
of Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation. 

Further deponent saith not. 

Sidney Le Sieur. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, A. D. 1906. 
[seal.] Thomas John, Notary Public. 

My commission expires on the 20th day of November, 1909. 



Notice of location, 
[Quartz.] 

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied w th the require- 
ment of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, 
customs, and regulations of this district, has located 1,500 feet in length by 200 feet 
in width on this the Helen lode vein or depo it bearing gold, silver, gilsonite, and 
other precious metals, situated in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, 
State of Utah, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, 
to wit: 

Beginning at this discovery post, which is abou f 4,910 feet S. 38° E. from the United 
States minine monument No. 1; thence N. 38° W. 60 feet to monument No. 1: thence 



ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 905 

N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 2; thence S. 38° E. 1,500 feet to monument No. 3; 
thence S. 52' W. 200 feet to monument No. 4; thence N. 38° W. 1,500 feet to monument 
No. 5; thence N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 1. 

The mining claim above described shall be known as the "Helen." Located this 
31st day of December, 1899. 

Names of locators: 

Sidney Le Sieur. 

Recorded January 29, 1900, at 9 a. m. 

John T. Giles, County Recorder. 
State of Utah, 

County of Wasatch, ss: 

I, James C. Jensen, recorder in and for Wasatch County, State of Utah, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing and annexed is a full, true, and correct copy of the Helen 
mining claim as the same appears of record on page 471 of Book T of the records of 
said Wasatch County. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 
26th day of February, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] J. C. Jensen, County Recorder. 



Notice of location. 
[Quartz.] 

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied with the requirements 
of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, cus- 
toms, and regulations of this district, has located 1,500 feet in length by 200 feet in 
width on this the Paris lode vein or deposit, bearing gold, silver, gilsonite, and othei 
precious metals, situated in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, State of 
Utah, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, to wit: 

Beginning at the discovery which is about 150 feet N. 30° W. from post No. 2 of 
the patented claim "Dalton Lot No. 40;" thence N. 38° W. 150 to monument No. 
1; thence N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 2; thence S. 38° E. 1,500 feet to monu- 
ment No. 3; thence S. 52° W. 200 feet to monument No. 4; thence N. 38° W. 1,500 
feet to monument No. 5; thence N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 1. The north- 
west end lines of this claim coincides with the southeast end line of the Troy claim. 
The mining claim above described shall be known as the "Paris^" Located this 31st 
day of December, 1899. 

Name of locators: 

Sidney Le Sieur. 

Recorded January 29, 1900. 

. ohn T. Giles, County Recorder, 
State op Utah, 

County of Wasatch, ss: 

I, James C. Jensen, recorder in and for Wasatch County, State of Utah, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing and annexed is a full, true, and correct copy of the Paris 
mining claim, as the same appears of record on page 472 of Book T of the records of 
said Wasatch County. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 
26th day of February, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] J. C. Jensen, County Recorder. 



Notice of location. 
[Quartz.] 

Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied with the require- 
ment of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, 
customs, and regulations of this district, has located 1,500 feet in length by 200 feet in 
width on this the Troy lode vein or deposit, bearing gold, silver, gilsonite, and other 
precious metals, situate in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, State of 
Utah, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, to wit: 

Beginning at the discovery, which is about 475 feet N. 35° W. from post No. 2 of 
the patented claim "Dalton lot No. 40;" thence S. 38° E. 175 feelrto monument No. 1; 



906 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

thence S. 52° W. 100 feet to monument No. 2; thence W. 38° W. 1,500 feet to monu- 
ment No. 3; N. 52° E. 200 feet to monument No. 4; thence S. 83° E. 1,500 feet to 
monument No. 5; thence S. 52° W. 100 feet to monument No. 1. The southeast end 
line of this claim coincides with the northwest end line of the Paris claim. 

The mining claim above described shall be known as the "Troy." Located this 
31st day of December, 1899. 

Name of locator: 

Sidney Le Sieur. 

Recorded January 29, 1900. 

John T. Giles, County Recorder. 

State op Utah, County of Wasatch, ss: . 

I, James C. Jensen, recorder in and for Wasatch County, State of Utah, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing and annexed is a full, true, and correct copy of the Troy 
mining claim as the same appears of record on pages 472-3 of Book T of the records 
of Wasatch County. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal thiB 
26th day of February, A. D. 1906. 

[seal.] J. C. Jensen, County Recorder. 

SALVADOR COSTA. 

The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2731 ) for the relief of 
Salvador Costa, having had the same under consideration, beg leave to report as 
follows: 

A similar bill was favorably reported in the Senate and passed that body at the 
second session of the Fifty-fifth Congress. It is alleged that during the late war, in 
the years 1861 to 1864, Commander George N. Morris took possession of the sloop 
Mary Lawrence, belonging to the said Salvador Costa, and used it for Government 
purposes. Captain William Budd succeeded Commander George N. Morris at Pen- 
sacola and continued the use of the vessel, and it was finally destroyed, having never 
been restored to the owner. Mr. Costa claims that he was always loyal to the Gov- 
ernment and made repeated efforts to have his vessel restored to him, and after the 
war closed he endeavored to obtain compensation for his losses and finally presented 
his petition to Congress, but up to the present time has never secured relief. 

A report was made during the Forty-fourth Congress against his claim, but mainly 
upon the ground that proof was insufficient to justify any recovery. Subsequently 
other proof was filed by affidavit, but no evidence has ever been taken or submitted 
except in this form. The claimant seems to have made a prima facie case. The 
matter has long been delayed and some of the witnesses are dead, and it is only just 
to the claimant that the affidavits from such deceased witnesses should be considered 
by the court upon the trial of the cause. Your committee believe that Mr. Costa 
should have a right to have his case tried,, and recommend that jurisdiction be given 
to the Court of Claims to hear and determine the cause upon its merits and to find 
such judgment as is just and proper. 

MRS. JULIA L. HALL. 

The Committee on Claims, 1 to whom was referred the bill (S. 679) for the relief of 
Mrs. Julia L. Hall, having had the same under careful consideration, beg to report 
it back to the Senate and to recommend its passage without amendment. 

A similar bill was favorably reported by both Houses of Congress in the Fifty- 
seventh Congress, was passed by the Senate, and held an early place on the calendar 
of the House when the session closed. The number of the report was House Report 
No. 801. It contains the facts in the case so far as then known, and is adopted by 
your committee and made a part of their report, as follows: 

"The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1727) for the 
relief of Mrs. Julia L. Hall, beg leave to submit the following report and recommend 
that said bill do pass without amendment. 

" The claimant is the widow of the late Capt. Joseph T. H. Hall, who for many 
years was a resident of the city of Washington, D. C, and who died at Denver, Colo., 
on the 18th day of April, 1899, leaving no children surviving him, the widow being 
sole surviving heir. 

"The claimant and said Hall were married May 10, 1865, and lived together as 
husband and wife from that time until his death, most of the time in the city of 
Washington, D. C. 



allowance of cektain claims. 907 

" Claimant was born and reared in said city, where her father, I. C. Lewis, was a 
prominent citizen of means, and did much to improve the city, and much of the 
money used by her husband in executing the work which is the basis of this claim 
was furnished by her, having been received in property from her father. 

"Captain Hall left little or no property or money, and none that is the source of any 
income or means of support to the claimant; he was a soldier in the war of the rebel- 
lion, serving throughout the war and having an honorable record, and claimant has 
been granted a pension at $8 per month under the act of June 27, 1890, as his dependent 
widow, and this pension is her dependence for future permanent support, as she is 
left without means of support other than this, and on account of advancing years and 
ill health it is impossible for her to do anything to contribute to her own support. 

"Her said husband left a few accounts and claims for work he had done. The 
principal one, and all she expects to realize anything from, is the claim for work 
done by him in the city of Washington, for the District of Columbia, which she now 
asks the Congress to pay in the present bill for her relief. 

" In his lifetime the late said Joseph T. H. Hall did work as a contractor for the 
District of Columbia, in the city of Washington; that he furnished, spread, and broke 
'macadam,' according to the specifications of his contract, to the amount of 5,160.50 
cubic yards, or 15,481.50 square yards; that what are known and designated as the 
'board rates' for said work was $1.50 per square yard, and at these rates his work 
amounted to $23,222.25; that he was paid $12,461.06, leaving a balance of $10,761.19; 
but of this amount of cubic yards furnished by said Hall there were 940.40 cubic 
yards he did not furnish the stone for, and the District paid for same $2.23 per cubic 
yard, amounting to $2,097. This amount should be deducted from the total of the 
balance, leaving $8,664.19 due Mr. Hall. 

"Under the act of Congress of February 13, 1895, providing for the adjudication of 
claims against the District in the Court of Claims at the said ' board rates ' for the 
work done as aforesaid, Mr. Hall brought an action in the Court of Claims and secured 
a judgment for said balance of $8,664.19 June 22, 1896, and also for interest on same 
at 3.65 per cent from the time of the completion of the work under the contract, which 
was January 1, 1877. The opinion of the Court of Claims in rendering said judg- 
ment is reported in volume 31, Court of Claims Reports, at page 376. The District 
took exception to said judgment as to the allowance of interest and appealed to the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and by decision of February 15, 1897, the judg- 
ment of the Court of Claims was reversed, the court holding in favor of the conten- 
tion of the District, that interest should not have been allowed. 

"Before further proceedings could be had in the Court of Claims the act of Congress 
of February 13, 1895, above referred to, was repealed by the act of March 3, 1897, 
and the Court of Claims had no further jurisdiction to enter judgment for said sum 
of $8,664.19, being the principal sum for the work without interest. 

" That said Hall died without ever having received said sum of $8,664.19, or any part 
thereof. 

"That the sum of $23,222.25 was considered a fair and reasonable price for the work 
done by her late husband; that the balance of $8,664.19 was found due, and as she 
has no remedy to compel the payment of the same, she appeals to the Congress to 
pass an act to pay her the said amount. 

"This amount, $8,664.19, is the principal sum of the balance found due January 1, 
1877, and the Court of Claims allowed interest on the same from said date. 

"Had it not been for the allowance of the interest this amount would have been 
paid by the District. 

"We recommend the passage of the bill and the payment of said principal sum 
found due, as the balance unpaid for the work done, without interest, according to 
the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to." 

Since the above report was made, the original contract between Mr. Hall and the 
District of Columbia, and other papers in the case which were for a time lost, have 
been restored to their proper place in the office of the clerk of the United States 
Court of Claims. 

It appears that Mr. Hall's contract was dated May 31, 1872, and called specifically 
for payment "in lawful money of the United States," and required him to pay his 
workmen "in cash current." 

In contracts made with other parties a little later it was expressly stipulated that 
payments be made in "bonds issued by the sinking fund Commissioners of the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, which bonds shall be received and accepted at their par value." 
With the exception of a small sum, Mr. Hall, in violation of the terms of his con- 
tract, was obliged to accept in payment certificates of indebtedness payable in these 
bonds instead of "lawful money of the United States." 



^08 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 

On account of the uncertain legality of their issue, these bonds were worth at the 
time of delivery about 50 cents on the dollar, and it appears from sworn testimony 
that for $11,900 worth of these bonds, which Mr. Hall accepted under protest, he 
realized the sum of $5,950. However, the equity in this claim does not rest simply 
in the fact that Mr. Hall was obliged to accept bonds of uncertain value contrary to 
the terms of his contract, and that the unpaid balance at interest would amount to 
far more than the claim of his bill; it is also evident that Mr. Hall was obliged by 
his contract to pay his workmen "in cash current," and did so pay them, and in 
consequence he had to mortgage and ultimately lose one piece of property after 
another, including his home. 

o 



UfcAp'l 



